Saturday Slumgullion #21 -- Currency Edition

The original news from AP via CBS News: In late November, a federal judge ruled that United States paper currency discriminates against blind people because different denominations of bills are impossible to tell apart without vision or some other assistance.

"It's just frankly unfair that blind people should have to rely on the good faith of people they have never met in knowing whether they've been given the correct change." --Jeffrey A. Lovitky, attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit

This week, the Bush administration filed an appeal, stating (among other things) that blind folks can use credit cards if they want better control of their money.

Our Money Too, an organization supporting the change of paper currency debunks some myths about the process and its effects. Here's one I hadn't thought of myself:

Myth No. 5: The issue of tactilely discernable currency is a "distraction" from important issues impacting blind people.

• Tactilely discernable paper currency will increase employment opportunities for blind and visually impaired people by affording them greater access to jobs where the handling of cash is an "essential function" of the job.

• Younger blind and visually impaired Americans will have an easier time finding work in the retail sector-an industry where many young people get their first work-related experience.

• Improving blind and visually impaired people's access to a wider variety of jobs is especially important considering the fact that between 55% and 60% of visually impaired people of working age and 70% of working-age people who are legally blind remain unemployed, according to the most recent statistics from the American Foundation for the Blind.

Joseph Shapiro's NPR report on some blind people who don't feel money redesign is necessary. It's audio, but there are also images of various foreign currency that does accommodate blind people's needs at the link.

An article in the Christian Science Monitor:

Surprisingly, the ruling was not universally embraced by the more than 10 million blind and visually impaired people in America. While few deny that having differentiated bills would make life easier, some say the lawsuit sends a message that the blind are helpless. Opponents also say it detracts from other problems blind people face, such as unemployment and lack of Internet access.

A statement against currency redesign from the National Federation of the Blind:

The National Federation of the Blind believes that with training and opportunity, blind people can compete in the world with only minor modifications. The American Council of the Blind, which brought the lawsuit against the United States Treasury, promotes the view that the blind are unable to compete unless the world is modified dramatically and specifically for blind people, and that the blind must be made objects of care and pity rather than equal participants in society.

An article from the Press-Enterprise:

"I had a friend who took out a $100 bill thinking it was a $10, and paid for a cab. And the driver kept it," said Shannon Burke, a mostly blind La Quinta resident who teaches along with Davies at the Braille Institute in Rancho Mirage. "If we had some sort of way to differentiate, that wouldn't happen."

At the Howard County Maryland Blog -- "Blind Money and Wasted Resources" questions the Bush administration's assertions in its appeal of the judge's ruling.

At Majikthise, Lindsey Beyerstein writes about vending machines and the government's moral imperative.

Kathy Podgers at From the Port comments on the position of the National Federation of the Blind.

The ruling debated at Overlawyered.

At Speak Up, an unlikely but creative solution: smell-o-cash.

David Gates at Growing Up with a Disability asks "Why can't we get it?"

At Blind Chance, David Faucheux on changing currency as an "accommodation."

At The Blind Bookworm Blog, Kestrell comments on the currency ruling and on comments to her opinions.

And, at The Volokh Conspiracy, an examination of the ruling and what "meaningful access" means when talking about currency. Comments are interesting -- if infuriating -- too.

Because conservatives are using Judge Robertson's record as a reason this ruling is faulty, here's the Wiki on him.

For the curious: this is an electronic money reader. Notice it's not currently available until March of 2007, and that it costs $270.