Weird Logic
I understand that the blind have a very tough job managing in the world of the sighted. But this is one of those instances where the courts have inserted themselves to address a really minor problem which will cost a great deal to rectify. It may be a feel good kind of ruling, but it does nothing whatsoever to address any substantive issue. A Federal judge has ruled that paper money discriminates against the blind. Some people are focusing on the real issue rather than a sideshow, however.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson said keeping all U.S. currency the same size and texture violates the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government programs.
"Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations," Robertson wrote in his ruling. "More than 100 of the other issuers vary their bills in size according to denomination, and every other issuer includes at least some features that help the visually impaired."
Day Al-Mohamed, director of advocacy and government affairs at the American Council of the Blind, said that most of the world's currency is distinguished by color, size, perforations or tactile symbols. The Euro, for instance, can be determined by the length of the bill — the higher the denomination the longer the bill.
"Saudi Arabia has money that varies in size based on denomination," she said. "If so many other countries can do it, why not the greatest country in the world?"
"It's exciting from our perspective. It's an area that doesn't get a lot of attention. I give ACB a lot of credit for hanging in there," said Andrew Imperato, president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities. "Hopefully it's just going to make blind people able to live more independently."
But John Paré, director of public relations for the National Federation of the Blind, the nation's largest organization representing blind people, said identifying the money is hardly the most difficult obstacle for the blind to overcome.
"The focus for improving the lives of blind Americans needs to be put on earning money not figuring out how to identify money," he said. "Over 70 percent of blind Americans are under-employed or unemployed and this is what needs to be addressed.
"It really is distracting to have this lawsuit," he said, since assistance should concentrate on people "who don't have the money in the first place."
Now, that last statement says a lot more about the real issue here. But the decision by Robertson addresses a side issue (at best). So what is the real value of it? And why are so many of these sideshow issues being decided by Clinton appointees? Where exactly does this reasoning stop? A thought experiment: the ruling hinges on the "Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government programs". I cannot fly a fighter jet for any number of reasons, but I happen to be (truthfully) blind in one eye.
Is the government now to be forced to make me a fighter pilot? Is this not the same weird logic? (I am actually sympathetic to the issue, but this is exactly the wrong way to deal with the issue. This is, I think, bad law and a bad use of the courts.)
UPDATE: Others: OTB, YACRWB, STACLU,
