guises. Charitable feelings and the best of intentions are almost inevitably involved. There is great concern (or at least expressed concern) for our safety. So the desire to protect and care for us is almost without exception the common motive. Few acts of discrimination against the blind or handicapped are based on raw hatred as sometimes may be the case with other minorities. But combatting hatred would probably be easier than trying to confront an overprotective and benevolent spirit. Nevertheless, The we must do so if we are to gain our equal place in society. following examples may help to illustrate how discrimination-unreasonable and detrimental treatment--manifests itself in the case of the blind. These illustrations could be multiplied several fold. They help to describe the problem and the difficulty we have in dealing with it in the absence of protective laws. The Michael Hingson story: In September, 1980, Michael Hingson, a young blind sales executive who works for an internationally-known small computer firm was traveling in California for purposes of marketing his company's products and continuing contacts with clients or former clients. Michael uses a dog guide named Holland. When he arrived in the boarding area for his Pacific Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco, Hingson was advised by a gate agent that "blind passengers with guide dogs must sit in bulkhead seats," and, furthermore, that the bulkhead seats (six in all) were already assigned to other passengers. But, Mr. Hingson had not requested a bulkhead seat, and he did not want one in the first place. agent, however, was unyielding--Hingson would sit in a bulkhead The seat or he would not fly on PSA. It was an open and shut case, that was that. The plane was dispatched and Hingson was left to wait. But, there is more, much more. PSA has frequent flights from Los Angeles to San Francisco. So, realizing this, Mr. Hingson decided he would wait and attempt to get a seat on the next PSA flight available. There was open seating. So, when the time came, Mr. Hingson, ticket in hand, joined the line of other passengers and sought to enter the aircraft. He did so but found himself restrained by agents of PSA who once again insisted that Hingson occupy a bulkhead seat. This, he respectfully declined to do and attempted to move to a seat more toward the middle or rear of the aircraft. He explained that his dog Holland would be more secure under one of these seats than he would laying in the aisle at the bulkhead and that furthermore he (Hingson) would be better able to do some work in flight by using the drop-down table attached to the seat ahead. The bulkhead was not suitable, and Hingson felt within his rights to request any other seat that might be unassigned or unoccupied. This was not to be. The mood of the PSA representatives turned ugly. In the altercation which followed (not precipitated by Mr. Hingson) Mr. Hingson's arm was twisted behind his back, his Braille watch was broken, and his dog guide was taken from him. He was forceably removed from the aircraft and denied his right to travel. Why? Why was Mr. Hingson denied his right to fly? The sole and simple reason was that he declined to sit in a bulkhead seat. Upon examination of PSA's policies concerning air transportation for the handicapped, we found that there was no policy requiring blind passengers to be seated in bulkhead seats. Quite the opposite, according to one PSA representative--the guy who developed the policies in the first place. But, in subsequent litigation which ensued, the airline has stubbornly defended the actions of its agents, never mind what the policy says or what it was intended to say. The airline personnel "laid down the law" and Michael Hingson was expected to obey it, without regard to whether their orders had any rational basis, and even if the instructions were, as in this case, unreasonable and detrimental. This example illustrates a kind of arbitrariness which we face in travel and tourism today, because so often there are few laws or regulations to govern the conduct of the industry. Agents, representatives, and other personnel with whom we must deal represent themselves as omnipotent--all powerful and all knowing. Either we cooperate on their terms or we are not served. The Individual preference makes no difference. handicapped are the handicapped. We are all to be treated alike regardless of circumstances. This is true in air travel as well as other forms of transportation or public accommodations. How about a And they say there is no discrimination: Caribbean cruise? In the spring of 1981, Donna Yates, a young, bright, and attractive well-trained blind woman paid her money and signed up to take a Caribbean cruise. That is where her troubles began. The New York City booking agency (Singleworld) was glad to serve Donna. But under date of May 20, 1981, the Costa Cruise Line who owned and operated the ship upon which Donna intended to sail returned her payment, explaining that neither the company nor any prospective cabinmate could bear the responsibility for having to care for an unattended blind person on board ship. So what? Donna required no care and wanted no attendant. She was perfectly capable of attending to herself. However, the idea that Donna was blind triggered images of helplessness and dependency in the minds of Costa Cruise Lines representatives. Under such circumstances, they felt perfectly at ease returning Donna's money and refusing to book the cruise. It was not a matter of discrimination. To the cruise line officials it was simple common sense--you do not accept an unaccompanied blind person on board ship. The ship isn't built for them. Whatever that means. As a This is a clear illustration of how misconceptions and an overgeneralization as to the needs of "the handicapped" can result in acts of unreasonable and detrimental treatment. matter of practical and provable fact (although I have not personally inspected every cruise ship) there is simply no sailing vessel built for the travelling public which cannot be negotiated with safety by someone who is blind. True enough, some handicapping conditions may well prevent travel in certain areas on certain types of vessels. This may be especially true where steep stairways or narrow passages and doorways are involved. But, none of these or similar barriers is a matter of concern to a blind person booking a cruise. Donna Yates had paid her money as was required of a prospective passenger, and she rightfully expected to be treated like anyone else. Denying her was unreasonable and detrimental and thus the refusal constituted discrimination on the basis of blindness. But the incident had a happy ending as we were able to make an appeal to the New York State Human Rights Agency. The investigators found probable cause for a judgment that the Costa Cruise Line had violated the New York State Human Rights Act. Then a settlement was eventually negotiated with the company. Donna could take her cruise unhampered and unrestricted. took a fight of nearly two years duration to do it. This illustrates the value of having protective legislation. But it In one Travel Insurance: Discrimination against the blind which sometimes occurs in travel insurance is among the most shocking manifestations of unreasonable and detrimental treatment. instance which came to light only a few years ago, the Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, doing business through a subsidiary carrier called Tele-Trip at the Des Moines, Iowa, Municipal Airport, agreed to sell a sighted woman flight insurance in any amount up to $325,000, but declined to sell her blind husband the same insurance to cover him for any more than $20,000. Both were employed. He earned more money than she did. Both would be riding on the same plane, and neither intended to fly it. They merely intended to sit there and ride along with all of the other passengers. If the plane went down, God forbid, all (or mostly all) on board would probably be killed. It is doubtful that the tragedy would have a greater impact upon a sighted passenger than on a blind one or that the blind passenger would be more likely to die. There is simply no evidence that blind people are greater |