April 2008 Issue

Subscribe to the Readers' Forum feed

From Yvonne Schnitzler, Festus, MO:

Words cannot possibly express the surprise and elation I felt when I received the E. Matilda Ziegler Foundation's James H. Veale Humanitarian Award. I immediately called Ida Scotti to thank her for writing such a beautiful letter on my behalf.

I am honored to have been chosen because I know there are many others who are deserving of this award for their service in supporting the interests of the blind. I want to assure you that I will continue my efforts in advancing the causes of the blind because it is something I enjoy and is so close to my heart.

Please extend my heartfelt gratitude to the E. Matilda Ziegler Foundation's board of directors for having considered me the recipient of this prestigious award. Thank you so very much.

From Buck Saunders, Huntington, WV

I am writing in response to the comments in February about Joybubbles. It appears that the individuals who criticized him are unaware of the secret admiration human beings have for people who skirt the edge of the law.

I'm not saying that what he did was right, but there are people who have a little bit of larceny in their souls. They are not smart enough or brave enough to bring that out into their public life.

For example, we applaud the efforts of people such as Elliott Ness, but we also have a secret admiration for people like Al Capone. Therefore, when we read about blind people who are on the other side of the law to some degree, we feel that they are in some ways more equal than those who are sequestered and lead a private existence of being honest and good, with no thought of outwitting the other guy.

Joybubbles seemed like a reasonably enough nice guy, and he wasn't mean or vicious. What he did was wrong--no question--but he did this: He showed that blind people, despite their lack of sight, are very, very human and can be successful at something.

Also, I understand that Joybubbles had a very rough childhood. We all need to ask ourselves the question: What would we have done in the same situation?

The fact is that Joybubbles did repent. He was known to many, and spoke his opinion. He gave suggestions to make the phone available to more blind people. This indicates he knew right from wrong, and he changed his ways. He showed by his contributions to magazines that he could teach blind people how to make the best use of phones, and by doing this, Joybubbles demonstrated a type of philanthropy.

From a reader in New York:

I am appalled at what has been written about Joybubbles. I was a close friend of his. He was a bright, kind, good person. He did have serious problems, but so do many blind people who never quite manage to fit into society. He did much more good than bad, and was absolutely brilliant when it came to phones. He was marginalized because of his desire to remain a child, something that isn't really possible. Being hugged and held was all he wanted.

I know it is necessary for the Ziegler to publish what readers write, but I am saddened by the abject meanness and narrow-mindedness of many of my blind brethren. Maybe I identify with Joybubbles in a way because I am gay and somewhat marginalized. Thanks to the editor for printing the obituary, and for being a true seeker of truth.

From Steven Gibb, Tucson, AZ:

As his friend of 25 years and the executor of Joybubbles's estate, I was nothing less than shocked and appalled at the letter written by Ayn Apelman in the February issue.

I view all of the statements by this person as a harsh judgment. Who is she to say Joybubbles could have done better? Did she live in Joybubbles's world, and was she molested by nuns in a Catholic school? I think not. Maybe he could have done better if our government would have funded some therapy or set tougher standards for the schools that treated him badly. Since his own parents and sister didn't believe he was molested, he was then left on his own, with nobody to hear his story. The nun was never confronted because his parents didn't believe him. How many other children's lives did she ruin? Even if Joybubbles did want help, how does one afford to get help while living on disability?

To compare him with criminals is so unjust that I am at a loss for words. Joybubbles was nothing but loving to his fellow man, and gave back a million percent to the Bell System after pulling his shenanigans in the 1970's! If he were a true criminal, the games would have continued. He truly manufactured his arrest to survive.

Sure, there are things he could have done differently, according to me and the rest of the world. But we didn't walk in his shoes, and it's just flat-out wrong to judge people and not accept them as they are. I could have judged him for many things he did to me, but I accepted him and his friendship.

Why do we always have to place expectations on people to meet our standards? It's a sad day when people who never met Joybubbles have to be so harsh on someone who loved so much of the world in his best capacity.

From Ayn Apelman, Pittsburgh, PA:

Thank you for publishing my letter about Joybubbles. I was really angry when I wrote it. However, I felt some remorse after I got all that rage off my chest. How would I feel if I had so much ability but couldn't use it for anything constructive? What would I do? Maybe I'm feeling sorry for Joybubbles, and that's no excuse, but it's always good to put myself in the other person's shoes.

Rather than criticize, I should pray. I should also remember that blind people are as different from one another as the sighted.

From Avraham Rabby, Tel Aviv, Israel:

After retiring from the Foreign Service at the end of June, I participated, in August, in the Department of State's famed Job
Search Program, which I confirm, by the way, is one of the Department's very best program offerings and one which you
youngsters in the audience can really look forward to.

Perhaps the most important exercise required of participants in the Job Search Program is the writing of a resume, which, we
were instructed, should highlight what we each considered to be the best accomplishments in our lives, in general, and in our
careers, in particular. We all then shared our resumes with our fellow participants and publicly commented on each other's
product, sometimes with brutal, though always useful, honesty.

The main thrust of some of the comments I received about my resume ran something like this: "Do you really want to mention
your disability discrimination lawsuit against the Department of State? Don't you think a prospective employer might be just a
tad concerned that you might sue him, too?" "Absolutely I want to mention it," I said. "Why on earth would I keep quiet about what I regard as probably the number one accomplishment of my life?" The fact is that what I did in the late 80's and early 90's, perhaps for the first time in my career, benefitted not only me personally but made a difference to other people's lives and brought dignity and a feeling of self-worth to other individuals
with disabilities.

This reticence, this reluctance to talk out loud about our history and our struggle for equality as people with disabilities
I find very unfortunate; all the more because I notice it in the very announcement of today's celebration, which was included in a Sept. 27 press release from the Office of the Spokesman. "Since 1945," says the spokesman, "October has been dedicated by
Congress as the month to honor and to celebrate the contributions of individuals with disabilities in the workforce." True,
indeed! Yet, nowhere in this release can we find a single reference to the 45-year period from 1945 to 1990 when the
Department of State strenuously refused to acknowledge that people with disabilities had any useful role to play in the Foreign Service, let alone honor and celebrate their contributions!

Not a word in this release about then-Director General of the Foreign Service Ambassador George Vest, who shamelessly
declared exclusion of people with disabilities to be the Department's policy in a debate with me on "Good Morning America." Not a word in this release about the hearings Congress held, with 200 members of the National Federation of the Blind looking on, regarding disability discrimination by the Foreign Service. And, perhaps most importantly, not a word in this release about the momentous decision which, to his everlasting credit, Ambassador Edward Perkins, who succeeded George Vest, took to once and for all do away with disability discrimination in the Foreign Service and begin accepting otherwise-qualified
disabled candidates who pass the competitive Foreign Service examinations. Ambassador Perkins, a black man, knew a thing or two about prejudice and discrimination, and his decision not only made me the first beneficiary of that change in policy (since I had already passed the exams) but, in the intervening 17-year period, has given employment to at least 170 other people with disabilities who are serving honorably both here in Washington, as well as elsewhere in the United States and at U.S. embassies and consulates all around the world.

For the Department of State to recall that, since 1945, Congress has dedicated October as National Disability Employment
Awareness month without, at the same time, even mentioning the ultimately successful battle of the disabled community to break down the doors of the Foreign Service is akin to celebrating Black History month by recalling the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment but staying mum about the battle for de facto racial justice and equality which followed the 14th amendment, the 1963 March on Washington and the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Please, let us not forget our history! Let us not sweep it under the rug! Because if we do not recognize where we have come from in the past, we likely will not be able to chart an accurate and effective course for ourselves in the future. So, let me, if I may, expand briefly on what I believe is the true significance of today's celebration for American society as a whole and for the Department of State in particular.

To say that we celebrate the contributions of individuals with disabilities in the workforce is much too trite and, frankly, just a little paternalistic.

Black History Month and Women's History Month are celebrated not to highlight the contributions of blacks and women in the
American workforce; we take it for granted that blacks and women contribute just like white males do. Rather, we celebrate Black History Month and Women's History Month to highlight our striving for equal status for blacks and women in American society and our yearning for that more perfect union.

Likewise with today's celebration. We are gathered here not because people with disabilities make a contribution (we know that, thank you very much), but because the Department's decision in 1990 to begin accepting candidates with disabilities into the Foreign Service represented a triumph of American democracy in the fullest sense of that term, and a magnificent illustration of how ordinary citizens can use the levers and mechanism of a true representative democracy, such as access to an elected legislature, a free and independent legal system, and a responsible and responsive media, to bring about attitudinal and behavioral change in their government.

The Department's change of heart represented a singular success in the struggle of our disabled minority for social justice and a human rights achievement of the highest order. And, given the vociferous protests of the disabled community at that time, the Department's change of policy was a clear demonstration of freedom of speech in a genuine democracy. In case you think I am overstating the case, let me remind you that, in certain countries, outspoken protests by people with disabilities does not go unpunished. In China and Cuba, to mention just two examples, there are disabled human rights activists who are today either in jail or under house arrest for publicly voicing their disapproval of their governments' policies; that is to say, for doing exactly the same as, or even much less than, what the disabled community did in the United States vis-a-vis the Department of State, in the late 1980's.

Which brings me to my final and perhaps most important point. In her speech at Georgetown University, on Jan. 18, 2006,
Secretary of State Rice outlined her doctrine of "transformational diplomacy." Referring to President Bush's second inaugural address in which he spoke of promoting democracy around the world, Secretary Rice said: "To achieve this bold mission, America needs equally bold diplomacy, a diplomacy that not only reports about the world as it is but seeks to change the world itself. We seek to use America's diplomatic power to help foreign citizens better their own lives and to build their own nations and to transform their own futures. In extraordinary times like those of today, when the very terrain of history is shifting beneath our feet, we must transform old diplomatic institutions to serve new diplomatic purposes. In a day and time when difference is still a license to kill, America stands as a tremendous example of what can happen with people of diverse backgrounds. In order for America to fully play its role in the world, it must send out into the world a diplomatic force, a diplomatic corps that reflects that great diversity."

Madame Secretary, people with disabilities are an integral part of that diversity, and as such, we bolster that diplomatic power of which you speak. By posting disabled Americans in our embassies and consulates abroad, we light a beacon for people with disabilities everywhere to follow, and inspire them to better their own lives and transform their own futures. But of even greater significance than that: when disabled Americans in capitals abroad deliver the U.S. foreign policy message to host
country governments; when disabled Americans negotiate resolutions with delegates from 191 other member states at the
United Nations; or when disabled Americans speak to civil society groups around the world about U.S. culture and values, they are living proof, more convincing than anything else could be, of the openness, pluralism and vibrancy of American society.

That is transformational diplomacy in action! That is transformational diplomacy at its very best, and that is what we are celebrating today.