Money (That's What I Want)
A judge has ruled that the government is violating accessibility standards because all paper currency is the same
color, shape, and size.
There is a link to a pdf version of the judge's ruling, and I found it fascinating--particularly the discussion of "meaningful access." He also talks about how leaving the $1 unchanged could dramatically cut the costs of this project.
There has been much discussion of this on two of the NFB lists I read. This is, IMO, a relativeley minor issue faced by blind people. But I don't think the NFB needs to support an appeal of this suit.
Someone posted the following NFB resolution, passed in 2002, just after the original ACB suit was filed.
Resolution 2002-25
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2002, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) and two
individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the treasury of
the United States and the treasurer of the United States alleging that the
federal government is in violation of Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, by issuing all U.S. currency in
an identical size, color, and texture, which renders various denominations indistinguishable
by touch, alleging that the blind are thus largely excluded from enjoying
the benefits of monetary transactions and seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief by requiring the Department of the Treasury to implement design
changes in the currency to make the various denominations distinguishable by touch
and color; and
WHEREAS, this lawsuit is based on a false and misleading assumption that the
inability to distinguish banknote denominations by touch largely excludes the
blind from participating in commerce and other ordinary activities of life;
and
WHEREAS, the theory of this suit is disproved by the lives of tens of
thousands of blind persons who live normal lives and participate in commerce every
day without difficulty; and
WHEREAS, more than having difficulty with money, blind people are apt to suffer great harm from the attendant publicity
surrounding this suit, fostering and reinforcing the notion that the blind cannot easily handle currency as
it now exists and, for example, needlessly
creating an albatross around the neck of any blind person seeking employment in any position involving
handling money; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that currency identification is truly a problem for
individual blind people, various technological devices capable of identifying
banknotes and audibly announcing their denomination are available for sale,
and in fact giving every blind person in the country such a device would be
simpler and cheaper than re-engineering the nation's cash-handling capacity; and
WHEREAS, in view of its false premise and lack of merit, there is little
likelihood that the relief sought by this lawsuit will ever be granted, thus using
the blind in a publicity stunt and showing little regard for the genuine
needs and concerns of blind people; and
WHEREAS, more than the adverse publicity resulting from the filing of this
suit itself, there is a substantial risk of a ruling that could nullify the potential
benefits of Section 504 by narrowing its scope and coverage or over-turning
the law altogether, as has happened with other recent court decisions in the
area of disability: Now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention
assembled this ninth day of July, 2002, in the City of
Louisville, Kentucky, that this organization take all appropriate and legally available steps to advise the
court that the failure to have U.S. currency
issued as sought by the plaintiffs
in this suit is not an act of discrimination against the blind and in such a
fashion that the accompanying ruling does not harm current and future efforts
to achieve genuinely needed and desirable accommodations for the blind; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization take steps to counter the
adverse effects of the harmful publicity arising from
this particular lawsuit and renew efforts to educate the public that the blind can participate in
commerce on equal terms and fully enjoy the benefits of U.S. currency as it now exists.
Someone wrote to one list, expressing concerns that tactile markings could make us *more* vulnerable to getting gypped. This is someone I respect, so I wrote a private email to this individual asking for clarification. I'm posting part of that email here, along with some other thoughts on the NFB's resolution.
Personally, I agree that the suit never should have been filed. But I'm concerned about what can happen if NFB works to appeal this ruling. We certainly don't mind being seen as radical and extremist, but I do believe currency
modification is going to happen at some point, and appealing it is a bad PR move and will only have negative results.
I think that even if the tactile modifications could lull us into a false sense of security, we'd need to consider the effect this would have on sighted store personnel/cab drivers/whoever might try to short-change us. I do think the
tactile modifications would be a deterrent, since the temptation to short-change a blind person has to do with the fact that we can't recognize the bills. So even if we were less likely to confirm money by checking it, others will be less
likely to intentionally rip us off.
I find myself with some problems about the resolution. In particular, it mentions employment concerns resulting from fears that blind people cannot handle money. It makes sense to me that these could be relevant while this is in litigation
and before the currency is changed. But if we *did* have accessible currency, it would end up eliminating this hurdle. How many jobs are not open to us now because people assume without bothering to ask that a blind person can't
manipulate currency? If every blind person who wanted such a job had the opportunity to prove that they could do this, there wouldn't be an issue; but employers don't usually get that far. Employers won't know that the government
gives everyone a money identifier (if this happens); they *will* recognize that accessibility features are built into currency, and I think in the long run, this would have a positive impact on employment.
Many of the facts in the resolution seem to be based on a premise that is no longer valid: The resolution states that injunctive relief is not likely to be granted. It has, and the situation is different now.
I wonder how the supreme court will rule on this (because I think it will end up going that far).
Finally, if you have a chance, I'd encourage reading Roberts' opinion. He makes some interesting points about how the costs of implementation could be slashed dramatically by leaving the $1 bill unchanged.
So, while I think it was unfortunate for the suit to be filed, I'm not sure that supporting an appeal is wise and will have the desired effect.
Addendum: Sadly, the part of the resolution that talks about "harm[ing] current and future efforts to achieve genuinely needed and desirable accommodations for the blind" is more than just talk. When cases like this are lost, it can be decided that the statute requires a narrower interpretation. This has happened in many ADA cases. The concern is that this could result in fewer applications of Section 504 of the Rehab Act, since the Act could be more narrowly construed to prevent a suit like this from coming up in the future. I don't know if it would go that far--too hard to tell with the current Supreme Court.
Also, it has been proposed that issuing money identifiers to every blind person in the country is the preferable alternative. I don't think so.
I haven't posted this anywhere yet--thought of posting it to one of the lists, but I might refine it first.
Problems with money identifiers.
1. They are not always accurate. I tried a version of a money identifier that was a few years old, and I definitely didn't get accurate results every time. How do those of you with newer identifiers find their performance? How often does the
machine work accurately? I would be delighted to know that there have been improvements since the ones I used were made.
2. They will be susceptible to damage. There will be problems if the battery dies, if the machine is dropped, etc.
3. Transactions will be slower and less efficient than they could be. Who appears more competent? Is it the person who can quickly and easily recognize and store their cash, or the person who has to place each bill in a machine for
identification? You would need to step away from a checkout counter to identify your money so as not to cause the people behind you to become annoyed by the "poor blind person," who, after all, can't help it if they are necessarily
slower at some tasks.
4. This method only provides accessibility to those whose hearing is good enough to decipher the voice of a money identifier (possibly through headphones, which would add a bit of complexity) in a noisy environment. It does not address
the needs of blind travelers from abroad who would not be able to obtain and use money identifiers. There will be individuals who won't know about money identifiers despite the best efforts of NFB, the Department of the Treasury, and
rehab-teaching personnel.
5. In addition to the cost of the machines, there will be costs associated with distribution, education, and repairs. Judge Roberts' opinion suggests that the costs of altering the currency might not be as high as the government has
claimed. It would seem that more information is needed to determine which would give (pardon the pun) "the best bang for the buck." If providing money identifiers is less costly (and it probably is, but I think the difference is not as great
as has been suggested), does this justify perpetuating problems 1 through 4 above?
color, shape, and size.
There is a link to a pdf version of the judge's ruling, and I found it fascinating--particularly the discussion of "meaningful access." He also talks about how leaving the $1 unchanged could dramatically cut the costs of this project.
There has been much discussion of this on two of the NFB lists I read. This is, IMO, a relativeley minor issue faced by blind people. But I don't think the NFB needs to support an appeal of this suit.
Someone posted the following NFB resolution, passed in 2002, just after the original ACB suit was filed.
Resolution 2002-25
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2002, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) and two
individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the treasury of
the United States and the treasurer of the United States alleging that the
federal government is in violation of Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, by issuing all U.S. currency in
an identical size, color, and texture, which renders various denominations indistinguishable
by touch, alleging that the blind are thus largely excluded from enjoying
the benefits of monetary transactions and seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief by requiring the Department of the Treasury to implement design
changes in the currency to make the various denominations distinguishable by touch
and color; and
WHEREAS, this lawsuit is based on a false and misleading assumption that the
inability to distinguish banknote denominations by touch largely excludes the
blind from participating in commerce and other ordinary activities of life;
and
WHEREAS, the theory of this suit is disproved by the lives of tens of
thousands of blind persons who live normal lives and participate in commerce every
day without difficulty; and
WHEREAS, more than having difficulty with money, blind people are apt to suffer great harm from the attendant publicity
surrounding this suit, fostering and reinforcing the notion that the blind cannot easily handle currency as
it now exists and, for example, needlessly
creating an albatross around the neck of any blind person seeking employment in any position involving
handling money; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that currency identification is truly a problem for
individual blind people, various technological devices capable of identifying
banknotes and audibly announcing their denomination are available for sale,
and in fact giving every blind person in the country such a device would be
simpler and cheaper than re-engineering the nation's cash-handling capacity; and
WHEREAS, in view of its false premise and lack of merit, there is little
likelihood that the relief sought by this lawsuit will ever be granted, thus using
the blind in a publicity stunt and showing little regard for the genuine
needs and concerns of blind people; and
WHEREAS, more than the adverse publicity resulting from the filing of this
suit itself, there is a substantial risk of a ruling that could nullify the potential
benefits of Section 504 by narrowing its scope and coverage or over-turning
the law altogether, as has happened with other recent court decisions in the
area of disability: Now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention
assembled this ninth day of July, 2002, in the City of
Louisville, Kentucky, that this organization take all appropriate and legally available steps to advise the
court that the failure to have U.S. currency
issued as sought by the plaintiffs
in this suit is not an act of discrimination against the blind and in such a
fashion that the accompanying ruling does not harm current and future efforts
to achieve genuinely needed and desirable accommodations for the blind; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization take steps to counter the
adverse effects of the harmful publicity arising from
this particular lawsuit and renew efforts to educate the public that the blind can participate in
commerce on equal terms and fully enjoy the benefits of U.S. currency as it now exists.
Someone wrote to one list, expressing concerns that tactile markings could make us *more* vulnerable to getting gypped. This is someone I respect, so I wrote a private email to this individual asking for clarification. I'm posting part of that email here, along with some other thoughts on the NFB's resolution.
Personally, I agree that the suit never should have been filed. But I'm concerned about what can happen if NFB works to appeal this ruling. We certainly don't mind being seen as radical and extremist, but I do believe currency
modification is going to happen at some point, and appealing it is a bad PR move and will only have negative results.
I think that even if the tactile modifications could lull us into a false sense of security, we'd need to consider the effect this would have on sighted store personnel/cab drivers/whoever might try to short-change us. I do think the
tactile modifications would be a deterrent, since the temptation to short-change a blind person has to do with the fact that we can't recognize the bills. So even if we were less likely to confirm money by checking it, others will be less
likely to intentionally rip us off.
I find myself with some problems about the resolution. In particular, it mentions employment concerns resulting from fears that blind people cannot handle money. It makes sense to me that these could be relevant while this is in litigation
and before the currency is changed. But if we *did* have accessible currency, it would end up eliminating this hurdle. How many jobs are not open to us now because people assume without bothering to ask that a blind person can't
manipulate currency? If every blind person who wanted such a job had the opportunity to prove that they could do this, there wouldn't be an issue; but employers don't usually get that far. Employers won't know that the government
gives everyone a money identifier (if this happens); they *will* recognize that accessibility features are built into currency, and I think in the long run, this would have a positive impact on employment.
Many of the facts in the resolution seem to be based on a premise that is no longer valid: The resolution states that injunctive relief is not likely to be granted. It has, and the situation is different now.
I wonder how the supreme court will rule on this (because I think it will end up going that far).
Finally, if you have a chance, I'd encourage reading Roberts' opinion. He makes some interesting points about how the costs of implementation could be slashed dramatically by leaving the $1 bill unchanged.
So, while I think it was unfortunate for the suit to be filed, I'm not sure that supporting an appeal is wise and will have the desired effect.
Addendum: Sadly, the part of the resolution that talks about "harm[ing] current and future efforts to achieve genuinely needed and desirable accommodations for the blind" is more than just talk. When cases like this are lost, it can be decided that the statute requires a narrower interpretation. This has happened in many ADA cases. The concern is that this could result in fewer applications of Section 504 of the Rehab Act, since the Act could be more narrowly construed to prevent a suit like this from coming up in the future. I don't know if it would go that far--too hard to tell with the current Supreme Court.
Also, it has been proposed that issuing money identifiers to every blind person in the country is the preferable alternative. I don't think so.
I haven't posted this anywhere yet--thought of posting it to one of the lists, but I might refine it first.
Problems with money identifiers.
1. They are not always accurate. I tried a version of a money identifier that was a few years old, and I definitely didn't get accurate results every time. How do those of you with newer identifiers find their performance? How often does the
machine work accurately? I would be delighted to know that there have been improvements since the ones I used were made.
2. They will be susceptible to damage. There will be problems if the battery dies, if the machine is dropped, etc.
3. Transactions will be slower and less efficient than they could be. Who appears more competent? Is it the person who can quickly and easily recognize and store their cash, or the person who has to place each bill in a machine for
identification? You would need to step away from a checkout counter to identify your money so as not to cause the people behind you to become annoyed by the "poor blind person," who, after all, can't help it if they are necessarily
slower at some tasks.
4. This method only provides accessibility to those whose hearing is good enough to decipher the voice of a money identifier (possibly through headphones, which would add a bit of complexity) in a noisy environment. It does not address
the needs of blind travelers from abroad who would not be able to obtain and use money identifiers. There will be individuals who won't know about money identifiers despite the best efforts of NFB, the Department of the Treasury, and
rehab-teaching personnel.
5. In addition to the cost of the machines, there will be costs associated with distribution, education, and repairs. Judge Roberts' opinion suggests that the costs of altering the currency might not be as high as the government has
claimed. It would seem that more information is needed to determine which would give (pardon the pun) "the best bang for the buck." If providing money identifiers is less costly (and it probably is, but I think the difference is not as great
as has been suggested), does this justify perpetuating problems 1 through 4 above?