The NYT reports on the reaction among the blind and visually impaired to the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Treasury Department's failure to accommodate the visually impaired violates the Rehabilitation Act.
About 16.5 million Americans are blind or partly blind, a number that is expected to double by 2030 because of an aging population and the prevalence of diabetes, said Tara A. Cortes, president of Lighthouse International, a nonprofit organization based in New York that addresses the problems caused by loss of vision. . . .
James A. Kutsch, the president of the Seeing Eye Inc. of Morristown, N.J., a nonprofit guide dog school, said the court decision would mean greater independence for people with vision loss.
“Currently, identifying money requires either the assistance of another person or use of technology,” he said, referring to portable or computer-based scanners that read aloud the denominations of paper money but can cost more than $250.
“Both have limitations,” Mr. Kutsch said. “Not everyone’s a techie — not everyone wants to use or can afford to use this technology. And with the low-tech option of asking someone else, you have to rely on the integrity of the person you ask, and the availability.” . . .
We hope that this ruling will not have the unintended consequence of reinforcing society’s misconception that blind people are unable to function in the world as it currently is,” Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, said in a statement.
“If America really wants to improve opportunities for education and employment of the blind, then it should focus on providing Braille instruction to the 90 percent of blind children who are not getting it, effective training for the 70 percent of blind adults who are unemployed,” and Congressional cuts affecting the Library of Congress’s Talking Books program.
Melanie Brunson, the executive director of the American Council of the Blind, which brought the lawsuit in 2002, said new paper currency could help address the unemployment rate among the blind, opening up many entry-level jobs in fast food or retail.
She said adding tactile features to bills, as Canada has done, could be a good solution.
“We’ve seen some fairly old Canadian bills, and the dots hold up pretty well as far as I know,” she said. And because many vending machines take only $1 bills, not all machines would have to be refitted, especially if the $1 bill was left in its current form, she said.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Impact of the Currency Decision:
- Money for the Visually Impaired:
- D.C. Circuit Affirms Trial Court Ruling that Paper Money Discriminates Against the Blind:
Stop making pennies and use the money saved to put tactile dots on the bills.
No, I haven't actually run the numbers on this to see if it's cost-neutral, but a couple of paper bumps can't be as expensive as copper alloy. My hunch is that the savings in transportation costs alone might be enough.
So now we need to put braille on the merchandise.
How about using debit/credit card?
National Federation of the Blind strongly opposes this ruling. It is even harder to tell from the headline: "The Blind Welcome a Ruling That May Help Them Count Their Cash". Did the Times actually do a survey?
Meaning that providing one free of charge to anyone who was legally blind would cost under 10% as much as just modifying vending machines to take a new currency? Sounds cheap enough to me.
For a court to say that if we cannot identify it by touch, we can't use it is a fiction and a dangerous one. Millions of items that cannot be identified by touch must be managed by the blind in business, industry, and education every day. We are successfully managing all of these endeavors, and the court's ruling challenges our ability to do so without any supporting evidence.
In other words they feel the legal significance is a reversion to an older, condescending legal model of the person with disabilities as a cripple in need of minders. The implication is that not only are "reasonable accomodations" necessary under the law but if you want to employ blind people you need to radically revise how you do business. (The consequence may be that fewer blind people get hired). They also view a revision of the bills as taking money away from much higher priority projects for blind people.
But here's the link between the blind and vending machines: the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 26 U.S.C. § 107 et seq., gives blind vendors priority for operating vending machines on public property. So you can see where there might easily be a split in the blind community: changes to currency might help some blind people but hurt others if they cause any problems in the vending maching industry.
My law school's vending machine contract is held by a blind vendor. I wonder how he feels about the ruling.
1. Stop making pennies.
2. Stop making $1 bills.
3. Put Washington on the $10 (sorry Hamilton). Or you could invent a $3 bill (which might end up hurting the stand-up comic business?)
4. Vending machines will start accepting $2 bills, which would not change.
5. Change all higher bills.
6. Mint more $1 coins.
I think there's all of one member of Congress interested in coinage and currency issues (GOP from Delaware, I recall), but the lobbyists for the zinc industry and the paper manufacturer can take care of him.
(well somebody had to say it)
I have a cheaper solution – change (or repeal) the statute.
You do know the rest of us have to use state issued script?
So now your "small inconvenience" affects everything from wallets to cash registers to vending machines to banks...
It's one of a million things that will need to be changed. You're ignoring vending machines, gas pumps that take currency, ATMs, self-checkout stations at grocery stores and so forth. The burden is not "a small inconvenience to the state" when the externalities are factored in, they impose a burden on many private sector actors. Couple billion here, couple billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. It's burden shifting as well - the government doesn't pay for it, nor do businesses, rather consumers do. So consumers / taxpayers actually lost the suit, since they will ultimately pay for the changes either way.
Feh, what do you care. You're a lawyer, and if there's anything we lawyers know, it's what's best for everybody else. When the (by far largest) organization for the blind in the country takes a stand, I would tend to defer to their judgment, but I guess you know better. They would probably tell you that it was a long route out of darkness for people with disabilities, and part of their argument was that they want to be integrated, not treated with kid gloves. Disability advocates will discuss how the perception of people with disabilities has been changed from the asylum model (institutionalize them), to the pity model ("we have to change everything so that you can feel worthwhile, you poor bastard") to a model where integration is sought - reasonably accomodating people with disabilities. By demanding *total* accessibility of all things at all times - which is what ACB and a number of other very aggressive (and non-mainstream, BTW) disability rights groups demand - they raise the bar for accomodation unreasonably high. The ADA and Rehab Act only demand "reasonable" accomodation, not absolute accomodation. The basic principle of NFTB's argument is that the ruling will make the perfect the enemy of the good, and will also chill the hiring and other integration of people with disabilities. Most blind people get along okay with American paper money; they typically keep different denominations segregated - plus not all 'blind' people are completely sightless, many can recognize the large numbers on the currency. I work with three blind people, and while their opinions are merely anecdotal, none of them are thrilled about the ruling because they feel it's unnecessary.
I guess you knew all that, just like you seemed to detect my hidden argument for tearing out the wheelchair ramps...
The law as written demands "reasonable accommodation", but of course, reasonable (pretty much by definition) is what is already done, so the courts blow it up to "whatever the defendant can afford without going bankrupt, plus a little more".
Of course it comes to this: an accommodation so terrifically reasonable that almost nobody, not even the ones who supposedly benefit, wants it.
And this isn't about *total* accessibility, this is about having bills that blind people can identify. Is is seriously so unreasonably high, when many modern governments have already managed to make this accomadation? You're claiming that "vending machines, gas pumps that take currency, ATMs, self-checkout stations at grocery stores and so forth" will be unable to read the bills with this modification, but I find this argument very suspect, I'd like to see evidence why we can't modify the bill in ways where they can still be read by current money-readers. If that's the case, I certainly understand your point of view, and some compromise should be reached to accommodate the owners of these machines... perhaps giving them a significant period of time before a change is made.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But Congress has the power to coin money. if Congress in it's wisdom or lack thereof decides that bills should be uniform in size and texture then so be it. Argue with Congress. The courts shouldn't be micromanaging this issue.
Utility bills aparently discrinimate.
W-2s apparently discriminate.
A whole host a paper used in daily life may very well likewise discriminate, e.g., bank statements.
The question I have to ask is does there exist portable, inexpensive, reliable products that can provide solutions short of a complete disruption of our current system?
My experience with technology suggests that there are likely a variety of technology solutions to remediate this issue. A pen scanner? A holograph reader? Other?
I am impressed with blind folks' justifiable pride in their ability, and pretty disgusted with the misguided social engineers who think they know exactly what's good for everyone else, and how we can accomplish their newest great idea with just a few $billion more here and there. It's that kind of 'we know what's good for you' thinking that jacks up our $trillion debt, swells the ranks of the make-work bureaucratic elite, and erodes the erstwhile American "can-do" attitude.
Ahh, the fallacy of the Thomas Lawrence dissent rears its head once again. Being batty is not constitutional if it infringes on a constitutional right (such as equal protection), even if that right happens to be very weak - ie rational basis.
I dunno. If Black People For Segregation sues to overturn Brown v. Board, would you defer to their opinion, or the NAACPs? Seems to me a vastly larger advocacy group claiming to represent the views of a particular segment of society deserves a bit more credence, based on membership rolls if nothing else. Would you trust a liberal gun owners group that favors gun control (there are such groups; they are usually astroturf) or the NRA, with its several million members?
Ahh, the fallacy of the Thomas Lawrence dissent rears its head once again. Being batty is not constitutional if it infringes on a constitutional right (such as equal protection), even if that right happens to be very weak - ie rational basis.
Yeah, sure Justin. Could you show me where the Constitution I can find the rights relied on by the litigants in this case, and how the currency violated equal protection?
1. Vending machines: Yes, the vending machine lobby is the main opposition to any physical change in currency. As I pointed out above, because of a federal program, blind persons are overrepresented in the vending machine industry. Although the difference in philosophy between ACB and NFB runs deeper than this, it may account for part of the disagreement between those bodies over this issue.
2. Gas pumps that take currency: I am genuinely interested in finding one of these.
3. ATMs: I suspect this is a nonissue. Remember only care about how accurately ATMs distribute bills; bills taken in are sealed in envelopes and later counted by hand. I think the few ATMs that still distribute different denominations of bills (instead of all twenties) just keep them in different reservoirs.
4. Self-checkout stations at grocery stores, etc.: Yes, but we made do without these until just a few years ago. Surely the stores that installed these machines must have done so because they felt they would realize some savings, mostly in payroll, by automating checkout. But they should have taken into account the possible cost of keeping up with physical changes to currency--particularly as so many have been introduced recently as anti-counterfeiting measures. Anyway, the technology is the same as vending machines.
You are going to make an awesome attorney, but would probably make an even better federal judge.
I also don't happen to think that Congress's failure to change the size of their bills is batty, but I was responding to the point made - that person was arguing that even if Congress created a batty law (that happened to discriminate against the blind), it would be ok.
The answer, of course, is that isn't true, and that's what made Thomas's Lawrence dissent so annoying idiotic.
Most of the ones I see in NC take cash.
3. ATMs: I suspect this is a nonissue. Remember only care about how accurately ATMs distribute bills; bills taken in are sealed in envelopes and later counted by hand.
You don't get out much, do you? There are lots of envelope-less ATMs where you just stick your checks and cash right in the slot. The ATM will even tally your checks for you.
Of course, you can sweep all of these away with "well they should've realized that the courts could meddle."
And I'm speaking as one who tends to think that the government should undergo some sort of tactile marking mechanism. But I think it should just be one of the anti-counterfeiting schemes they put in their next redesign.
"
First, you're equating the ACB with a racist black organization. Second, you seem to be saying the ACB wanted to to hurt blind people thru an analogy to liberal gun owners groups. Why don't you try to win this argument with logic instead of rhetoric &slander? And if you look at docket, Perkins Schol for the Blind, the American Foundation for the Blind, and the National Council of Private Agencies for the Blind and Visually Impaired all signed on as amicus curiae for ACB. On the other hand, NFB was the only organization for the blind that signed up with the state.
Yes, I'm sure this is a major issue in the blind community. I believe the usual scenario is that blind people drive in, pump their gas, read the charge on the pump, and then cry from frustration because they cannot count their cash.
Yes, I suggest you go tell that to George Lane and Beverly Jones. You must work for the Tennessee State Courts and Bar.
"You do know the rest of us have to use state issued script?" ----> Oh, yeah, right, and I would like to see you go try to buy an equine disability service horse or seeing eye dog with "state issued script." LOL.
"And relying on other people could dangerous" ---> Exactly. There are inherently evil people who are descendents of the Courts of Oyer and Terminer who have a genetically predispposed aversion to disabled people, the same way a small kitten inherently knows to chase after and rip apart a mouse decoy.
"Postage stamps apparently discriminate.
Utility bills aparently discrinimate.
W-2s apparently discriminate.
A whole host a paper used in daily life may very well likewise discriminate, e.g., bank statements." ---->
You got THAT right. And you can add:
Paper State and federal paper court pleadings and notices.
Bill collector reports of delinquency a blind person has no access to dispute in paper to Credit Bureaus used in the National Surveillance programs
Probate newspaper service by publication notices.
Paper contracts (no meeting of the minds, either).
Medical office and insurance company forms.
Prison grievances to exhaust administrative remedies before suit is allowed.
etc etc
"The ADA and Rehab Act only demand "reasonable" accomodation, not absolute accomodation" ----->
Actually, with respect to the ADA, if you actually read the plain language of Title II of the ADA (rather than masquerade as a blind gimp), you will see that the words "reasonable accommodation" appears NOWHERE in Title II; thus, the majority of barrier removals required by Title II of the ADA --e.g. State Courts -- are not limited by a "reasonableness" condition.
"Don't the do-gooders get it?? Blind people are proud of the fact that they can get along in society with minimal help. Proud of it! They are more self-sufficient than most, and they don't go around sniveling the incessant liberal mantra about how unfair life is.
I am impressed with blind folks' justifiable pride in their ability, and pretty disgusted with the misguided social engineers who think they know exactly what's good for everyone else, and how we can accomplish their newest great idea with just a few $billion more here and there. It's that kind of 'we know what's good for you' thinking that jacks up our $trillion debt, swells the ranks of the make-work bureaucratic elite, and erodes the erstwhile American "can-do" attitude" ----->
There is not a disabled Americans who has not heard this stupid anti-disability argument before -- i.e. we should be proud we're gimps and therefore we don't need protection. Are you blind? No insult meant -- I am asking if you are blind and have first hand personal experience of what it is like to accidently give out a $10 bill instead of a $1 simply because you can't see the #s printed on the paper clearly or at all?
Maybe you're like Ray Charles' ex-employers who like paying blind people in $1s instead of $5s.
DEAL WITH IT. Disabled Americans and the Courts are on to your scam.
Maybe you just have a couple hundred kilograms of cash you prefer to hide and exchanging it for the new currency will really ruin your day (life).
I stand by my point that blind people have a well-justified pride in their ability to function in society, including handling money. You, apparently, want a further expansion of the nanny state. Fine, that fits in with your defense of rent control, too. To each his own. But as economist Walter E. Williams points out, it's charity when you reach into your pocket to help someone out; but it's something else entirely when you reach into another person's pocket in order to fund your latest, greatest idea.
Blind folks would be much better off if the government simply gave them each their share of the $billions being thrown around in this issue alone. Why don't we just let blind people vote on it?
There's 4 organizations for the blind as amicus for the plaintiff (making 5 total)- and they certainly don't appreciate you talking for them. I've also pointed out that the NFB, while the largest organization for the blind, stands alone, and also has two conflicts of interest, which makes their decision just alittle suspect.
I can state w/o hesitation some barbers have an unnatural aversion to cutting folks' hair who were/had/suffered from:
(1) blindness,
(2) down's syndrome,
(3) wheel-chair bound
(4) deaf
(5) physically deformed
(6) stuttering
(7) autism
The barbers I speak of did not seem to be evil people on the surface; nevertheless, they were in fact pre-disposed to fear/shun disabled people the same way a kitten inherently attacks a mouse and/or mouse decoy.
We all know it was not too long ago Courts of Oyer and Terminer thrived on sub-human pre-dispositions to fear/shun disabled people to the extent Oyer officials would imprison disabled people, place them on trial for witchery and burn them to the stake prior to seizing their property and selling such to he highest bidding non-disabled person.
Some of the posts I read here clearly reflect the sub-human "Oyer" take on things to the extent I am very happy to see the DC Circuit did the right thing and placed you sickos one step closer to having to deal with disabled people WHETHER YOU FREGGIN' LIKE IT OR NOT.
DEAL WITH IT
How do we provide an affordable legal solution to this minority within a minority?
Disabled people with CNS impairments -- blind/vision impaired/hearing impaired/MS/autism/ALS/Parkinsons/CP/ quadrapelgics/no arms, etc -- nowadays use MACHINES do overcome their functional limitations.
However, EVEN THESE MACHINES ARE UNUSABLE, like wheelchairs, if the "ramps" are not built, in this instance total and complete PAPERLESS electronic format Internet access the MACHINES require for them to work in a way to benefit the disabled.
In sum, all blockades obstructing free travel on the Internet Superhighway -- whether an employer, business, agency, or state or federal courthouse -- MUST BE REMOVED ...
before disabled Americans will achieve access to live independent economically self-sufficient lives.