As mentioned in an earlier article, Merlin is not one person, but a consortium of five like minds. However, at the beginning there was only one whose goal was to identify, contact and invite the others. Some of the others thought it might be a good idea to clarify for our readers the goals and purpose of this webpage. They were invited to submit questions they felt our readers might ask if they had the opportunity.
M: Actually that's two questions. No, I am not some weirdo. Nor, am I new in the field. I have been around for a very long time. Perhaps that is the key behind all this. I have a tremendous respect for our field, but sometimes I see it becoming stagnant, too comfortable, and slow to embrace change. I hear too many ideas that have been recycled for decades.
M: It should be a problem for anybody who cares about our field and our aim to improve services to people who are blind. What has really changed since the Rehab Act of 1973? Sure, we are supposed to give priority for services to people with the greatest disability, but the way the regs were written this included anyone with as much of a disability as a hangnail or a bad case of hemorrhoids. This is an issue of complacency. We've become lazy in this field, satisfied to do the same old stuff the way we have done it for the last 30 years.
M: I began to find a few others who felt the same way. We shared a sense of pride in our work and frustration. As leaders in the field, we feel a responsibility to ask questions, challenge mediocrity, and ask others in the field to do the same, and try to help our field grow. I contacted them individually to confirm their beliefs and concerns, and asked them to join in an effort to try to make a difference in our field.
M: Let them. This is a very close field. If you want to take the risk of offending and challenging your colleagues who are still entrenched in their dedication to status quo, you need to remember these are the same people you may need to work with on your next grant proposal or joint project. It is not uncommon for some colleagues to be ostracized or criticized for nothing more than critical thinking. This can also come from consumer groups, some of whom are known for their twisting of facts and unchallenged vendettas. Sometimes, you have to risk offending someone to know you've gotten his or her attention. Also, we like to laugh at ourselves and, occasionally, some of the fat cats, the "leaders", in our field.
M: Almost all of them and I hope they will remain so. However, most of them, even when they share our opinions, do nothing with their beliefs. Or, they grew tired of fighting many years ago.
M: I see the new graduates coming into our field are our best strength. I work with many of them. They are better trained, they ask good questions and they chose to enter a field of work for which they are very committed. Their energy and enthusiasm are very exciting to watch. The greatest weakness, what I consider to be a disgrace, is the fact that the consumers with the greatest need of services, the greatest risk for exclusion from society, are the last to be served, if ever they are served. I'm repeating myself, but this goes back to the weakness of the VR Act of 1973.
M: Consumers hold the key. They are the ones who hold the real power in our field. However, often they will not work with each other, or have political differences which get in the way of cooperation. Sometimes their own vested interests have no relevance for others with greater levels of disability. Some forget that if you're blind and a graduate of law school, you share this distinction with far less than .1% of the blind population.
M: To continue seeking our intelligent signs of life in our field, to open dialogue about the future and what we want our field to become. Also, to build ties between various groups of interested parties, and convince them we need to work together, and can do so effectively if we put aside petty differences and ideology. I hope future volumes will be written more by others than just a few of us. I hope others will join our confederation of thought and alike minds, but that we always have members who challenge us and question everything.
M: There was once an era of Camelot in this country, a time when leaders were honorable. This was a time when the financial support was provided and never in question. Also, a time when regulations were clear and not just wasted exercises filled with current buzzwords. We were able to do that at which we were best, not just through hoops at the most recent fad. I remember those days very well, and so do many veterans in our field. The difference is that some of us are willing to recapture them, to celebrate what is good in our field, and change the rest.