Official Publication of the Optometric Historical Society 
 
 

 



 

 

Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History publishes material on the history of optometry 
and related topics.  As the official publication of the Optometric Historical Society, 
Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History supports the purposes and functions of the 
Optometric Historical Society. 
 
The purposes of the Optometric Historical Society, according to its by-laws, are: 
● to encourage the collection and preservation of materials relating to the history of 
optometry, 
● to assist in securing and documenting the recollections of those who participated in 
the development of optometry, 
● to encourage and assist in the care of archives of optometric interest, 
● to identify and mark sites, landmarks, monuments, and structures of significance in 
optometric development, and 
● to shed honor and recognition on persons, groups, and agencies making notable 
contributions toward the goals of the society. 
 
Officers and Board of Trustees of the Optometric Historical Society (with years of 
expiration of their terms on the Board in parentheses): 
President:  
John F. Amos (2015), email address: eyedoc@uab.edu 
Vice-President: 
Alden Norm Haffner (2014) 
Secretary-Treasurer:  
Chuck Haine (2016) 
Trustees: 
Jerry Abrams (2013) 
Arol Augsburger (2013) 
Irving Bennett (2016) 
Jay M. Enoch (2014) 
Morton Greenspoon (2015) 
Alfred Rosenbloom (2015) 
  
The official publication of the Optometric Historical Society, published quarterly since its 
beginning, was previously titled: 
Newsletter of the Optometric Historical Society, 1970-1991 (volumes 1-22), and 
Hindsight: Newsletter of the Optometric Historical Society, 1992-2006 (volumes 23-37). 
Use of the current title, Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History, began in 2007 with 
volume 38, number 1. 
 
On the cover: An 1899 advertisement from The Optical Journal for the South Bend 
College of Optics, of South Bend, Indiana.  The term optometry was not in common use 
at that time.  What we would today call optometry was often then referred to as optics.  
An article starting on page 71 discusses optometric education around the beginning of 
the twentieth century. 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 49 
 

HINDSIGHT: Journal of Optometry History 
October, 2013 
Volume 44, Number 4 
 
 
Editor: 
David A. Goss, School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, 
dgoss@indiana.edu 
 
Contributing Editors: 
Jay M. Enoch, 5537 106th Avenue NE, Kirkland, WA 98033-7413, 
jmenoch@berkeley.edu 
Irving Bennett, 5551 Dunrobin Drive, #4208, Sarasota, FL 34238 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
The Genesis of the Optometry Training Program in the Birmingham Veterans Affairs 
Hospital, John F. Amos……………………………………………………………………..50 
 
Notes on Optometric Education Around the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, David 
A. Goss……………………………………………………………………………………..…71  
 
“Optometrist of the Stars”: His Wife Remembers, Les-Lee Roland……………………..77 
 
William Kitchiner (1775-1827), Author of The Economy of the Eyes, David A. Goss…79 
 
Robert Klark Graham (1906-1997), Jack Runninger and Richard L. Hopping…………82 
 
Book Review: A Short Bright Flash: Augustin Fresnel and the Birth of the Modern 
Lighthouse, Reviewed by David A. Goss…………………………………………………...89 
 
Instructions to Authors………………………………………………………………………...91 
 
OHS Membership Application………………………………………………………………..92  
 
 
Journal subscriptions are registered by joining the Optometric Historical Society.  The 
cost of an institutional or library subscription is the same as for personal membership. 
 
Manuscripts submitted for publication should be sent to the Editor at the email or postal 
address above.  A Word document attached to an email message is the preferred 
means of submission.  Paper copy submissions sent by postal service will also be 
considered. 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 50 
 

The Genesis of the Optometry Training Program in the 
Birmingham Veterans Affairs Hospital 
 
John F. Amos, O. D. 
School of Optometry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 
35216-2049, eyedoc@uab.edu 
  

 
Introduction 

As the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Optometry (UABSO) 
celebrates its 44th year, it is important to record the history of events that served to not 
only shape the UABSO, but of equal importance, have significantly impacted the 
profession as well.  During the first 25 years of the UABSO professional program’s 
history, fourth year interns participated in four affiliated programs.  These programs 
were the Vision Function Laboratory of the Center for Developmental and Learning 
Disorders (CDLD), the Optometry Clinic in the Diabetes Research and Education 
Hospital (DREH), the vision screening and low vision rehabilitative care provided to 
clients of the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind (AIDB) and the Optometry 
Service of the Birmingham Veterans Administration Hospital (BVAH).  The CDLC, 
DREH and BVAH were all located on the UAB campus, with the AIDB facility being 
located about 50 miles east of Birmingham in Talladega, Alabama.  The first three of 
these rotations began in 1972 and were staffed with fourth year interns under faculty 
supervision.  Of the four original rotations, all but the Optometry Clinic in the DREH, 
continue to exist and provide, in some form, patient care services.  The DREH clinic 
eventually became a victim of political infighting in which ophthalmology, originally 
resistant to providing services in the DREH, agreed to provide such services either at 
the Diabetes Hospital or the Eye Foundation Hospital, which was located one block 
away.  Eventually the DREH ceased to exist as an entity when treatment, education and 
research of diabetes and other endocrine diseases were integrated into the UAB Health 
System.  However, it is the optometry training program in the BVAH that has had the 
greatest impact on the profession, especially from the national perspective. 
 
Early History of Optometry in the VA System 

Newcomb, in his paper on the history of optometry in the Veterans Administration 
(VA), provides a brief history related to the origins of the professions existence in the VA 
System.1  Optometrists were first placed on the staff of VA hospitals in 1947 following 
the end of World War II.  However, it was not until 1957 that Public Law 85-96 provided 
specific authority, through United States Code (38 USC) for subsequent employment of 
additional optometrists.  In 1958, Public Law 85-462 amended section 4105 (5) of USC 
38 to require that all optometrists employed by the VA must hold valid state licenses to 
practice optometry and must have graduated from an accredited and approved United 
States school or college of optometry.  Next, several laws were enacted to clarify the 
fact that staff optometrists were duly authorized to render care to eligible veterans for 
“medical services”.  In 1958, Public Law 85-857, and later in 1960, Public Law 86-598, 
made further modifications to USC 38 such that services of staff optometrists were 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 51 
 

defined under the rubric of “medical services”.  The purpose of these laws was to 
enhance the VA’s ability to render optometric care to eligible veterans.  Although 
veterans had been receiving limited optometric care since 1947, the U.S. Congress 
believed it was necessary to emphasize and clarify the fact that staff optometrists were 
duly authorized to render care to eligible veterans.  In this manner, the optometrists 
could not be excluded from providing such services, even though optometrists were not 
specifically included in the original law. 

 
With the establishment of the UAB School of Optometry, as an integral part of an 

academic health center, the profession’s involvement in the care of veterans was poised 
to expand.  The approval of an academic affiliation between UABSO and the 
Birmingham VAH and the establishment of an optometry program in the Birmingham 
VAH served as a stimulus for the development of other optometry programs in VA 
facilities with academic affiliations. 
 
Appointment of Dr. Peters to the Dean’s Committee of the Birmingham VAH 

The UAB School of Optometry began its first program, the professional program 
(Doctor of Optometry), on September 1, 1969.  The School’s first Dean was Dr. Henry 
B. Peters.  Dr. Peters was the only faculty member for the first academic year (1969-
70).  In the first UABSO Annual Report, which covered the 1970-71 year, Dr. Peters 
discussed future plans for the School.2  In this Annual Report, Dean Peters discussed a 
possible relationship with the Veterans Administration and more specifically with the 
BVAH.  As the Dean of a new health care professional program on the UAB campus, 
Dr. Peters had been offered, and accepted an appointment during this year, as a 
member of the Dean’s Committee of the BVAH.  The appointment was made by Dr. M. 
J. Musser, Chief Medical Director, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Veteran’s 
Administration Central Office (VACO), on the recommendation of Dr. Clifton Meador, 
Dean of the University of Alabama, School of Medicine, at UAB.2   

 
The transformation of the VA into its present system actually began in 1946 with 

the establishment of an appointed VA Administrator, a Chief Medical Director, and a 
Department of Medicine and Surgery along with a VA Central Office and the removal of 
physicians and dentists from Title V-Civil Service for purposes of pay.  The first training 
program in optometry was approved in 1972 and the position Director of Optometry was 
made possible by P. L. 93-82.1,3  An in depth history of the evolution  of the Veterans 
Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the role of optometry within the 
VA has been provided by Myers.3  
 
Planning and Initiation of an Optometry Training Program in the Birmingham VAH  

It is apparent that Dr. Peters had entered into discussions with the Veterans 
Administration during the academic year of 1970-71, for the development of a pilot 
optometry program.2  The purpose of this program was to provide clinical training for 
optometry interns from the UABSO and optometric technicians from the Regional 
Technical Institute (RTI).  These programs were to be located in the BVAH.  A proposal 
was developed by the UABSO and the BVAH for submission to the Veterans 
Administration Central Office (VACO) as a result of discussions between Dean Peters, 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 52 
 

the Director of the BVAH, and representatives of the Research and Education Service in 
the VACO during the summer of 1971.  This proposal was submitted on October 18, 
1971 and included a request for funding of renovation to existing space in the BVAH, 
purchase of equipment and support for faculty and staff as well as stipends for 
optometric technician students.4   Supplemental information was submitted to the VACO 
on December 22, 1971 that provided more detailed financial information.  On February 
2, 1972 the Director of the Birmingham VAH was notified of the approval for affiliation 
between the Birmingham VAH and the UAB School of Optometry and the funding of a 
pilot program.4,5    

 
Dr. Peters received a copy of the Chief Medical Director’s Weekly Highlights 

Reports on March 7, 1972 from Mr. Russell D. Bowman, Coordinator of Scientific 
Communications, entitled “Birmingham VAH to Help Train Optometrists and 
Optometric Technicians”.6  This Highlight Report noted that this would be the first 
program in the VA System to provide clinical training for optometrists and optometric 
technicians.  This program was the result of an affiliation between the School of 
Optometry, the University of Alabama in Birmingham Medical Center and the 
Birmingham VAH.  This report also referred to the fact that to become a completely 
effective member of a medical care team, optometrists needed more inter-professional 
interaction during their training.  It was also envisioned that this program would help fill 
the need for the workforce required to provide comprehensive care to the veteran.  It is 
clear from this Highlights Report that Dr. Peters recognized the considerable long-term 
promise such a program would have for teaching, research and patient care related to 
the UABSO and the profession of optometry. 

 
The appointment of Dean Peters to the BVAH Dean’s committee and the 

relationship that followed set in motion certain actions that led to a more formal 
relationship.  In a letter to Dr. Musser, dated March 31, 1972, Dr. Peters refers to Dr. 
Musser’s visit to Birmingham and Musser’s announcement of the affiliation of the BVAH 
and the UABSO.7  The date of Dr. Musser’s visit is not specifically mentioned by Dr. 
Peters, but it seems likely this visit occurred shortly before or perhaps within the same 
week, as the letter to Dr. Musser. 

 
In fact, on February 2, 1972, the Veteran’s Administration Department of 

Education and Research had formally approved and funded a program for the clinical 
training of optometry students and optometric technician students in the BVAH.5  The 
implementation of this new program was greatly assisted by the previous establishment 
of innovative training programs by the BVAH and the University of Alabama in 
Birmingham Medical Center.  The affiliation of the UABSO and the BVAH brought to 32 
the number of categories of health care personnel training in cooperative programs in 
an effort to help alleviate the shortage of health manpower.4  This pilot program was 
also mentioned by Senator Alan Cranston in an address before the Western States 
Optometric Conference on March 2, 1972 and is explained in more detail in Appendix II 
of this paper. 

 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 53 
 

On November 22, 1972, Mr. Clyde G. Cox, Director of the BVAH, issued Hospital 
Memorandum Medical Administration 45(136) as related to Policies and Procedures for 
Patient Services in the Optometry Program.  This memorandum contained a stated 
Purpose, Optometric Services to Be Provided to Eligible Veterans, Policy for Eligible 
Outpatient and Inpatient Veterans, Procedures for Eligible Outpatient and Inpatient 
Veterans and Procurement of Prosthetic Services and References to Applicable VA 
Regulations.8   

 
A position description was signed by Dr. Jeffery T. Keller as Chief, Optometry 

Service; Mr. Clyde G. Cox, Director of the BVAH; Mr. E. Vaughn Crawford, 
Administrative Officer/Medical Executive Board; and Mr. R.K. Davenport, Personnel 
Management Specialist, on December 12, 1972.  The position description related to the 
Chief, Optometry Service at BVAH as regards Principle Duties and Responsibilities, 
Supervisory Controls over the Position and Other Significant Facts.9  Dr. Keller initially 
received approximately one-half of his salary from the UABSO and the remainder from 
the BVAH. 

 
On December 21, 1972, Dean Peters sent a memo to the Association of Schools 

and Colleges (ASCO) and its Board of Directors announcing the opening of the 
Optometry Clinic in the BVAH.10  He included the Memorandum Outlining Policies and 
Procedures along with reference to this memorandum being the first known statement in 
the VA covering optometry services for a training program.  The clinic was completed in 
December 1972, and Keller stated that the BVAH Optometry Service officially began 
January, 1973.4    
 

Dr. Peters also prevailed on Ms. Gloria Goldstein, Director of Public Affairs at 
UAB during this time, to write U.S. Representative John Buchanan (R-AL) requesting 
that he have an announcement of this affiliation inserted in the Congressional Record.  
Goldstein enclosed two articles containing the necessary information; one being a 
statement or article written specifically for the Congressional Record, and the other, a 
news release sent to the press by her office.11  This letter, written March 31, 1972, also 
referenced the fact that Dr. Musser was in Birmingham that week and both he and Dr. 
Peters thought the insertion of this information in the Congressional Record would be 
helpful.   
 

On July 24, 1973 Mr. Clyde Cox, the Hospital Director of the Birmingham, VAH, 
sent a letter to the Regional Medical Director at VACO.  In this letter he describes the 
organizational change at the Birmingham VAH in which the position Chief-of-Staff had 
been restored in lieu of the Medical Executive Board.  This organizational change had 
recommended that optometry be placed under the Assistant Director with support and 
allied health services.  The organizational chart was approved by VACO on June 4, 
1973.  With the establishment of the position Chief-of-Staff and implementation of the 
approved organization, Mr. Cox states that his office has received a request that 
optometry organizationally be placed under the Chief-of-Staff.  The primary justification 
for this request stems from the feeling of this new VA Service to identify with and report 
to the Chief-of-Staff.  The Chief-of-Staff concurred. Cox requested that the Optometric 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 54 
 

Service be relocated accordingly.12  Interestingly, on August 16, 1973, Dr. R. N. 
Whittington, Regional Medical Director of Region 2, wrote a letter to the Director of the 
VAH, Birmingham advising him that the organizational chart had been revised and 
optometry had organizationally  been placed under the Chief-of-Staff.13  This issue 
would be revisited again in several years. 
  

In an August 2, 1973 memorandum to UABSO faculty Dr. Jeffrey Keller, Director 
of Optometry Services at the Birmingham VAH, announced that President Nixon had 
signed the Veteran’s Health Care Expansion Act of 1973.  This Act established the 
position of Director of Optometry and greatly expanded the availability and eligibility of 
veterans and their families for outpatient services.14  However, as of August 28, 1973, 
the regulations, as they were being redrafted, had not been published by the VA.15  On 
October 19, 1973 Dr. Peters responded to a request from Dr. Paul Haber, Deputy 
Assistant Chief Medical Director, Professional Services, VACO.  In this response Dr. 
Peters discusses, based on the development of the optometry program in the 
Birmingham VAH, the significant need for optometric services in the VA, concerns 
regarding the reporting structure for the optometry service and the need for optometry to 
report to the Chief-of-Staff and not surgical Services, services performed by optometry 
and the job description for the Chief of Optometry Services at VAH Birmingham, the 
willingness of UABSO to serve as an intake, indoctrination, qualification and continuing 
education center for optometrists employed by the VA, future development of Optometry 
Services and estimated costs for an optometry clinic based on Birmingham VAH, and 
finally the job description for the Director of Optometry Service.16  
 

On November 1, 1973 Dr. James Gill wrote to Dr. Peters requesting his 
assistance in the structuring of a Functional Statement for Optometry for use in the VA.  
Dr. Gill served on an American Optometric Association (AOA) Committee which met 
with the VA among other federal agencies.  In this letter he mentions a recent meeting 
he attended in Dallas, Texas with Drs. Peters, Robert Day and Mr. Hal Bailey.17  There 
is a copy of a four item list regarding a functional statement for optometry in Dr. Peters’ 
file but what role he played in its development is not stated. 
 
Optometry/Ophthalmology Relations in the BVAH 

Dr. Ralph Levene, Chairman of the Combined Program in Ophthalmology at 
UAB, sent a memorandum dated November 23, 1973 to Drs. Hill, Pittman, Peters and 
Aldrete.  In this memorandum he proposed a schematic outline of an ophthalmology-
optometry program for the VA.  He asked that Dr. Peters study the proposal and 
comment.  In summary, he proposed that 1.) The final program between the two 
professions involves the proposed Blind Rehabilitation Center (BRC), 2.) The proposal 
was in two steps because of the time lag in building a BRC; 2a.) Step 1 consists of an 
immediate updating of ophthalmology concurrent with the appropriation of funds from 
Washington to the Birmingham VA in 1974.  This involved space, money and an 
independent service, 2b.) Step 2 a detailed joint proposal for optometry and 
ophthalmology for a BRC program and the incorporation of adjacent space for the two 
professions within an expanded BRC, 3.) At this time Levene thought it best to keep the 
ophthalmology service within the Medical-Surgical unit rather than leave this unit and 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 55 
 

form a new Visual Science Unit with optometry.  At some future time this idea could be 
re-evaluated.18   
 

The discussion then broadened to the issue of ophthalmologists teaching 
optometrists and the conditions that must exist for this to occur.  Among these 
conditions set forth by Dr. Levene were that the ophthalmology community would teach 
optometrists to detect ocular disease but any proposal of unilateral legislation by 
optometry, deemed unacceptable to ophthalmology, would result in such teaching to 
cease immediately.19  Dr. Peters initial response to this memorandum was to send a 
memorandum to the Curriculum Committee, Department of Optometry, and Dr. Boyd 
Eskridge, Chairman, Department of Optometry.  In this memorandum Dr. Peters 
addressed the memorandum from Dr. Levene and his subsequent meeting with Levene.  
He stated he could make no promises regarding the actions of the Alabama Optometric 
Association or the Alabama Board of Optometry.  He did seek the Curriculum 
Committee’s input related to an outline of material that could be taught, the number of 
lecture hours and other details of ophthalmology’s participation in the professional 
program of the UABSO.20  This discussion had evolved beyond the scope of the 
optometry program at the Birmingham VAH and is discussed in greater detail in 
Appendix I. 
 

On February 28, 1974 Dr. Peters wrote a memorandum to Dr. William Baldwin, 
President of ASCO, in which he proposed ASCO develop a position paper to address 
the same general problem areas of optometry/ophthalmology relations.21  This 
memorandum was presumably written in response to the AUPO position paper which is 
discussed later in this paper.  The call for a position paper was also renewed later by 
Dr. Kenneth Myers in May, 1976.  Dr. Myers was the first Director of Optometry Service 
in the VA Central Office. 
 
Efforts to Establish a Joint Blind Rehabilitation Center 

On May 9, 1975 Dr. Peters wrote a letter to Dr. Carlton C. Evans, Director of 
Health Services Research and Development Service at VACO.  Dr. Peters expressed 
an interest in, and had learned from Dr. Myers, of Dr. Evans interest in the potential of 
developing a research proposal for exploring role relations between optometry and 
ophthalmology in a joint clinical program.22  He enclosed a “letter of intent” drafted at 
UAB in December, 1974.  In the “Statement on Development of a Joint Eye Clinic 
Veterans Administration Hospital” Dr. Peters submitted to Dr. Evans, he references Dr. 
Harold Skalka as the Chairman of the Department of Ophthalmology.  This statement 
proposed that a Blind Rehabilitation Center (BRC) be developed and that one floor of 
this addition be designated as a joint optometry/ophthalmology clinic.   
 

On June 25, 1975 Dr. Peters sent a memo to Dr. Skalka informing him that 1.) 
The Special Project Grant for faculty exchange had been verbally approved for funding 
and each program may proceed to recruit for one faculty position and 2.) Dr. Evans had 
sent a letter encouraging the submission of a proposal to explore role relationships 
between ophthalmology and optometry in the Birmingham VAH.23  In a memorandum 
dated July 14, 1975, Dr. Peters notified Dr. Myers as to the status of the District Council 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 56 
 

on Eye Care.  Dr. Peters had proposed such a council be formed to develop referral and 
service procedures related to eye care at the six VA Hospitals in Alabama.  These six 
hospitals comprised the VA’s Medical District 11.24  Dr. Peters had received a number of 
positive responses to the proposal and it was approved on July 2, 1975 by Dr. S 
Richardson Hill, Vice President for Health Affairs, UAB.  On August 21, 1975 Dr. Peters 
delivered a report to the Academic Health Affairs Committee, VA Medical District 11, on 
“The Joint Optometry-Ophthalmology Clinic, VAH Birmingham”.25  
 
Dr. Newcomb Appointed Chief of BVAH Optometry Service 

In December, 1975 following the completion of the Masters of Public Health 
degree from UAB, Dr. Robert Newcomb was appointed Chief of the Optometry Service 
at the BVAH.  On February 25, 1976 Dr. Robert Slaughter, Chief-of-Staff at BVAH, 
issued a policy for optometric services and clinical education in the VA Hospital.26  In 
this memo he approved a list of topical ophthalmic pharmaceutical agents that could be 
used for diagnostic purposes.  In a personal communication from April, 2010 Dr. 
Newcomb related that initially Dr. Slaughter had approved everything on the list with the 
exception of methylcellulose.27  Methylcellulose was, however, on the approved list sent 
by Dr. Slaughter and on the Diagnostic Pharmaceutical Agents list sent to the Chief-of-
Pharmacy Services by Dr. Newcomb on March 3, 1976.  How this list was approved is 
uncertain and somewhat curious considering the negative Alabama Attorney General’s 
opinion that existed at this time and the friendship between Drs. Slaughter and Robert 
Morris, Chief-of-Ophthalmology at the BVAH.  Perhaps it was a result of Dr. Slaughter 
being a Colonel in the Alabama Air National Guard at that time and, undoubtedly, being 
aware that military optometrists were often privileged to use both diagnostic and 
therapeutic ophthalmic pharmaceutical agents while on active duty.  Dr. John Potter 
was appointed as an additional staff optometrist during 1976.  Like Dr. Newcomb, Dr. 
Potter had been a Navy optometrist during the Vietnam era. 
 

It is important to keep in mind that in Federal agencies such as the VA, 
Department of Defense (DOD) and Indian Health Service (IHS) Hospitals and Clinics, 
clinical privileges are not governed by state law.  In these federal facilities, clinical 
privileges are granted to staff optometrists, just as with other independently licensed 
health care professionals, by a local Executive Board based on verification of 
credentials that include education, licensure and clinical experience as well as the 
needs of the facility.  All federal health care professionals need to be state licensed but 
not necessarily by the state in which a particular federal facility is located.  However, it 
should be noted that on November 14, 1975 the Alabama Legislature had passed a new 
law that did not prohibit the use of drugs for diagnostic purposes.  It would take another 
six years before the issue concerning the use of drugs by optometrists for diagnostic 
purposes in Alabama was finally settled with a positive Attorney General’s opinion. 
 
BVAH Organizational Structure 

Next, ensued several exchanges related to changing the organizational structure 
such that instead of being a service that reported to the Chief-of-Staff, optometry would 
report to the Surgical Service throughout the VA.  In a letter dated May 12, 1976, Dr. R. 
M. Whittington, Associate Deputy Chief, Medical Director for Operations, VACO, stated 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 57 
 

that a recent review of hospital organizations was needed.  The approved organizational 
structure for the BVAH facility was included by attachment but questions had been 
raised concerning the separate service status for optometry.  He concluded by stating 
this element of a separate optometry service was disapproved and should be 
restructured as a section under an appropriate service.28  In most other VA facilities 
optometrists functioned under the supervision of the Chief of Surgical Service, as did 
ophthalmology, and this was consistent with Departmental policies.  Thus, even though 
optometry was clearly not a surgical discipline, its scope of practice was more similar to 
ophthalmology’s than any other discipline in the VA hospital and, therefore, was placed 
under Surgical Service for administrative parity reasons. 
 

In a May 20, 1976 memorandum to Dr. S. Richardson Hill, Dr. Peters made an 
urgent appeal that the current organizational structure of direct reporting to the Chief-of-
Staff be preserved.29  On June 15, 1976 Dr. Whittington notified the BVAH Hospital 
Director that his appeal for the continuation of a separate Optometry Service had been 
denied.30  Whittington further pointed out that Congress had created the position 
Director of Optometry and not an Optometry Service.  The Director of Optometry in the 
Central Office would be assigned to VACO Surgical Service.30  Ironically, Dr. 
Whittington had approved the original organizational change placing optometry under 
the Chief-of-Staff in the Birmingham VAH in 1973.13   
 

From the first year of the establishment of an affiliation agreement for an 
optometry service between the UABSO and the Birmingham VAH in 1972, Dr. Peters 
envisioned a Blind Rehabilitation Center (BRC) at this hospital.  By 1976 there were 
only three such BRC’s in the U.S.: one in Palo Alto, California, one at the Hines VAH in 
Chicago and one at the Westhaven Hospital in Connecticut.  There was no such facility 
in the entire Southeastern Region of the United States.  The University Administration 
and the Birmingham VAH had collaborated in preparing a proposal and it had been 
under active consideration by the VACO for some four years.  In an effort to gain 
support for this BRC project, and to increase its priority, Dr. Peters wrote a letter to Mr. 
W. W. Wadsworth in the State of Alabama, Department of Veterans Affairs.31  Dr. 
Peters had met Mr. Wadsworth at a recent VAH Dean’s Committee meeting in 
Birmingham.  By this time Dr. Peters had also secured the support of the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars and the Blind Veterans Association. 
 

On July 29, 1976 Dr. Peters sent the following materials to Dr. W. F. Holdefer, 
Chief of Surgical Service at BVAH.32  First, the original proposal for the development of 
a clinical training program in the VAH for optometry, second, the original and renewed 
applications for an interdisciplinary training grant between optometry and 
ophthalmology, including the joint statement for the BRC and joint clinic and third, the 
current operating statement for the Optometry Service in the BVAH.  (It is assumed that 
either Dr. Holdefer was new to this position or not familiar with the project). 
 

In a Report of Contact, Mr. Doyle Liles, Hospital Director, BVAH on July 29, 1976 
sent notice to Mr. Michael Homyak at VACO that confirmed the BRC, including the 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 58 
 

ophthalmology/optometry clinic, were scheduled for design in FY 1977 and FY 1978.  
This facility was to be a five story addition to the Dental Wing of the BVAH.33   
 

In an August 12, 1976 letter to Dr. Paul Haber, Associate Chief, Medical Director 
for Professional Services, Department of Medicine and Surgery, VACO, Dr. Peters 
expressed concern about the change in reporting structure and sought Dr. Haber’s 
support of the BRC and Joint Eye Clinic at the BVAH.34  In a separate letter dated 
August 25, 1976, Dr. Peters again wrote Dr. Haber, expressing concern that he had 
learned that one of the proposals circulating around some circles was to 
organizationally place optometry under ophthalmology.35  He urged this matter be given 
his personal attention and, if necessary, a meeting scheduled with optometry leaders. 
 

As a result of this change, Dr. Newcomb was directed at some time in 1976 to 
send all unscheduled walk-in patients examined by optometry to ophthalmology for 
confirmation of diagnosis.  Dr. Newcomb was diligent in complying with this directive 
even to the point of sending patients with straightforward refractive conditions such as 
presbyopia.  Needless to say, after approximately six months, this resulted in even 
ophthalmology recognizing the waste of such redundant services and called to inform 
Dr. Newcomb it would not be necessary to continue these referrals.27  At the request of 
Dean Peters, Drs. Newcomb and Potter later published two articles on diagnostic 
outcomes of optometric referrals within the BVAH, which demonstrated both timeliness 
and appropriateness of optometric management plans.36,37   
 
Important Federal Legislation 

On October 5, 1976, Dr. Peters wrote a memorandum to the faculty of the School 
of Optometry announcing passage by the U. S. Congress of two bills of interest to 
optometry.  The first being the Veteran’s Omnibus Bill which established a separate 
Optometry Service in VA Central Office under Title 38.38  This separate service removed 
the threat of ophthalmological domination of optometry in the VACO, but not at the local 
level, and also provided for improved compensation for staff optometrists.  The second 
bill was the Health Manpower Bill which authorized legislation that included provisions 
for curriculum development, residency program development and support for regional 
consortia for development of optometry schools.  Dr. Peters also wrote a memorandum 
on October 6, 1976 to Dr. S. Richardson Hill informing him of the passage the Veterans 
Omnibus Bill, Dr. Haber’s support of the BRC, and a request to transfer the Special 
Projects Grant (Optometry-Ophthalmology Interdisciplinary Training Grant) from 
optometry to Dr. Hill’s office.  This would relieve the problem of ophthalmologists being 
paid from an optometry grant.39   
 

Dr. Peters was also instrumental in assisting with the development of VA 
optometry programs in other VA Hospitals with affiliation with optometry schools or 
colleges in the same city or area.  He was directly responsible for the establishment of 
the optometry program at the Tuscaloosa VA Hospital.  This program has developed 
into one of the leading optometry training sites in the VA System and continues to be an 
important part of the UABSO Externship Program and Residency Programs. 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 59 
 

Association of University Professors in Ophthalmology Resolution 
On November 10, 1976 Dr. Myers received a letter from Dr. Jonathan 

Wirtschafter, Secretary/Treasurer of the Association of University Professors in 
Ophthalmology (AUPO), informing him that a resolution had been passed on November 
7, 1976 at the AUPO business meeting of the membership.40  This resolution stated that 
the appointment of a Director of Optometry Service within the VA should in no way alter 
the proper role of this non-medical discipline in the eye care team.  Optometrists should 
continue to report to the Chief of Ophthalmology and, if there is no such position, then 
the Chief of Surgery, then to the Chief of Staff.  In response to the AUPO Resolution 
and letter Dr. Norman Wallis, President of ASCO, on November 23, 1976, appointed a 
committee consisting of Drs. Hopping, Peters and Haffner, to develop a draft response 
for consideration at the next ASCO Board of Directors meeting.41       
 

Dr. Peters sent a rewrite of a previously submitted statement to Dr. Norman 
Wallis on December 30, 1976.  This rewrite was developed by Drs. Myers, Newcomb 
and Peters with input from Dr. Hopping and the appointed committee.42  On January 5, 
1977 ASCO submitted to AUPO and others a “Statement of Position Relative to the 
Implementation of Optometric Participation in Veterans Administration Hospitals and 
Clinics under P. L. 94-581”.43  Dr. Wallis noted that this Position Statement was 
unanimously approved by the Board of Directors of ASCO on December 19, 1976.43  
The ASCO considered it both inappropriate and totally unacceptable to place optometry 
(a Service in the VA Central Office) under ophthalmology (a sub-department of the 
Surgical Service) or under another Service such as the Surgical Service.  ASCO was of 
the opinion, based on six rationales, that optometry should report to the Chief-of-Staff of 
the hospital or clinic in an administrative organizational chart like dentistry, nursing, 
pharmacy, and other independently licensed health care professions.  Ultimately, 
optometry’s position was not adopted by the VA, which places non-surgical doctors of 
optometry administratively in a section of the local VA’s Surgical Service even to this 
day. 
 
Features of the BVAH Optometry Service and Facility 
Administrative Reporting 

In a memorandum dated July 23, 1973, Mr. Clyde Cox, Director of the BVAH, 
notified the Regional Medical Director at the Veteran’s Administration Central Office 
(VACO) of an organizational change in which the Chief-of-Staff position had been 
restored at the BVAH.  Furthermore, that optometry would now report directly to the 
Chief-of-Staff instead of the Assistant Director of the Support and Allied Health 
Services.  This organizational change was approved by the VACO June 4, 1973.   

 
At the outset of early discussions with hospital administration, it was decided that 

optometry should function as a distinct service of the hospital.  In this manner the 
program director would be designated as the Chief-of-the-Optometry Service and report 
directly to the Chief-of-Staff of the BVAH.  The purpose of this reporting relationship was 
to ensure this program would function independently.  As a separate service, optometry 
would therefore be at the same administrative level as other professional services such 
as medicine, surgery and dentistry.  This administrative structure was indirectly 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 60 
 

supported by the Dean of the UABSO serving as a member of the Dean’s Committee of 
the BVAH.  The Dean’s Committee was an advisory committee to hospital 
administration on education and research programs conducted in the hospital.  Dean 
Peters also served on the Academic Health Affairs Committee for VAH District 14 which 
served in a similar capacity for Alabama and Mississippi.  Unfortunately this reporting 
structure was changed nationally by VACO, but this change has not impeded the 
development of optometry within the VA System.   
 
Features of the Optometry Clinic 

The newly renovated Optometry Clinic in the BVAH was a 1,600 gross square 
foot area on the ground floor of the Hospital.  This facility consisted of a 
reception/waiting area, optical service and repair area, frame selection and dispensing 
area, special test area, Director’s Office, two examination rooms, conference room and 
an area for ocular fundus photography. 
 

The clinic was staffed by fourth year student interns and optometric technician 
students, two optometric technicians and the Director.  In the beginning, patient care 
was provided on a part-time basis but the technical and clerical staff was present on a 
full-time basis.  The amount of time for providing clinical care transitioned to staffing the 
clinic full-time as the class size increased and as curriculum changes permitted. 
 
Patient Demographics 

The patient demographics, in general, were middle aged males many of them 
retired, disabled or not working because of health problems.  The patient census of the 
clinic was by law limited to veterans who were eligible for either in-patient or out-patient 
services in the BVAH.  After 10 months of providing optometric services to veterans, 
71% of all patients were found to be in need of eye care.  Many veterans had not had 
any form of vision care since separation from the military.  Of those patients needing 
vision care, glasses were provided to 72% of these veterans.  Based on this small 
sample of services provided, Keller predicted a significant growth in the number of 
optometrists needed to provide vision care to current and future veterans.3   

 
A follow-up study was reported by Kleinstein and Newcomb related to optometry 

services provided in the BVAH.44  Based on a retrospective case survey of almost 1,500 
clinic records, it was determined that the Optometry Service had provided 1,428 
comprehensive eye examinations for veteran patients during a two and a half year 
period.  The total number of patient visits for other services was at least double the 
number of comprehensive eye examinations.  Of those receiving comprehensive vision 
care, 50% had not received any care within the past three years, 35% in over six years 
and 12.5% had never received care.  Over 70% of the patients examined (1,056), 
required spectacles or a change in their current spectacle prescription.  Approximately 
14% of the veterans examined were found to have suspected disease or trauma and 
were referred to physicians in other hospital services.  Twenty-six (26) or 1.4% of 
veterans from this survey were found to be legally blind.  This case survey study clearly 
demonstrated the need for optometric services in this veteran’s hospital.  In 1975, Dr. 
Keller left the BVAH to assume the responsibilities of Assistant Dean for Clinic Affairs at 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 61 
 

UABSO and Dr. Robert Kleinstein was appointed Interim Chief of Optometry Services.  
In 1976, Dr. Robert Newcomb was appointed the next Chief-of-Optometry Services in 
the BVAH.  The success of the Birmingham VA Optometry Clinic led to the 
establishment of other such facilities as opportunities arose.  Dr. Peters shared his 
experiences with his colleagues at national meetings, such as ASCO, and wherever 
possible, encouraged and facilitated the development of other optometry clinics within 
the VA. 
 
Conclusion 

It is clear that Dr. Peters played a critical role in the establishment of the first 
academically affiliated optometry teaching program in the VA.  In this regard the 
profession is indebted to Dr. Peters for his insight and leadership.  Perhaps there is no 
clearer evidence of how percipient Dr. Peters’ recognition of the promise optometric 
services in the VA would hold for teaching, research and patient care than to examine 
the number of staff optometrists, optometry fellows and residents, and optometry interns 
currently involved in the VA programs.  To place the current staffing levels in some 
perspective, as late as 1972 there were only nine (9) full-time optometrists in the entire 
VA system.45  Newcomb has reported that prior to 1976 there were only eight (8) full-
time optometrists in the VA system.1  At present, there are 721 staff optometrists; 543 
are full-time, 164 are part-time and 14 are intermittent in assignment.  There are three 
(3) clinical research fellows, one (1) Polytrauma Clinical Fellow and one (1) 
Polytrauma/Traumatic Brain Injury Research Fellow.  The latter position is post 
residency in nature.  In addition, there are 211 residents and an estimated 1,200 
optometry intern positions and approximately 1,400 rotation opportunities available on 
an annual basis.45   
 

It is clear that the VA has been pleased with the quality of optometric services 
provided by staff optometrists, fellows, residents and interns as evidenced by many 
outcome measures.  Perhaps the most important outcome measure being that the vast 
majority of the positions have been funded by the budgets of the local VA hospitals or 
outpatient clinics.   
 

It seems very likely that more recent military involvement around the world will 
only serve to increase the demand for optometric services for veterans. It may also be 
that the growth in postgraduate clinical experiences as a career option will lead to future 
growth in residency education and fellowship experience in the VA System.  The impact 
the VA has had on optometric education and the profession of optometry has been of 
great importance.  Its importance to staff optometrists, fellows, residents and interns 
cannot be over-estimated.  It is also important to recognize the significant role VA 
optometrists play in providing primary and secondary eye care to the nation’s veterans.  
It is clear that optometry has provided excellent clinical care while allowing the VA 
System to provide timely care to those who have borne the battle. 
 
Acknowledgment 

I thank Drs. Bob Newcomb and John Townsend for sharing information related to 
various aspects of optometry in the VA.  I also want to thank Mr. Tim Pennycuff and 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 62 
 

Jennifer Beck of the UAB Archives for their assistance in locating information from Dr. 
Peters’ files referenced in this paper. 
 
References 

1. Newcomb RD.  History of optometry in the VA.  Hindsight:  J Optom Hist 2010; 
41: 6-8. 

2. Peters HB.  UAB School of Optometry Annual Report (1970-71).  pp 13.  UAB 
Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

3. Myers KJ. Public Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In: Hatch S, 
Whitener JC, McAlister WH, Block S, eds.  Optometric Care Within the Public Health 
Community.  Section 3, Government Role in Health Care.  Cadyville, NY; Old Post 
Publishing, 2010: 1-34. 

4. Keller JT.  Optometric training in a Veterans Administration hospital.  Am J 
Optom Physiol Opt 1974; 5: 425-428. 

5. Foye LV. Letter to Director, Birmingham VAH Announced Approval and 
Funding of Pilot Program. Clinical Training of Optometrists and Optometric Technicians 
in VAH Birmingham. February 2, 1972. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

6. Bowman RD.  Reference Slip to Dr. Peters. Birmingham VAH to Help Train 
Optometrists and Optometric Technicians.  Chief Medical Director’s Weekly Highlights 
Reports, March 7, 1972.  UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

7. Peters HB.  Letter from Dr. Peters to Dr. Musser Regarding Meeting in 
Birmingham, March 31, 1972. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

8. Cox CG.  Optometry Program.  Hospital Memorandum, Medical Administration 
45(136), November 22, 1972.  UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

9. Crawford HV.  Position Description, Chief of Service, Optometry Service, 
December 12, 1972.  UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

10. Peters HB.  Letter to Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry 
(ASCO). December 21, 1972.  UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

11. Goldstein G.  Letter to U.S. Representative John Buchanan, March 31, 1972. 
UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

12. Cox CG. Letter to Regional Medical Director, VACO. Organization of VA 
Hospital, Birmingham. July 24, 1973. 

13. Whittington RN. Letter to Hospital Director Birmingham VAH. Organization of 
VAH Birmingham. August 16, 1973. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

14. Keller JT.  Memorandum to UABSO faculty. V.A. Legislation. August 2, 1973. 
UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

15. Johnson DE. Letter to Representative William Jennings Bryan Dorn, 
Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, U. S. House of Representatives.  August 28, 1973. 
UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

16. Peters HB.  Letter to Dr. Paul Haber Regarding the Development of the 
Optometry Service in the VA. October 19, 1973. UAB Archives, University of Alabama 
at Birmingham. 

17. Gill JR. Letter to Dr. Peters Regarding a Functional Statement for Optometry.  
November 1, 1973. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 63 
 

18. Levene RZ. Memorandum to Drs. Hill, Pittman, Peters and Aldrete. 
Ophthalmology-Optometry Combined Program, VAH Birmingham, Including Blind 
Rehabilitation Center. November 23, 1973. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

19. Levene RZ. Memorandum to All Staff Members and Senior Residents of the 
Eye Foundation Hospital. Teaching Optometrists by Ophthalmologists. January 2, 1974. 
UAB Archives, University of Alabama Birmingham. 

20. Peters HB. Memorandum to Curriculum Committee, Department of 
Optometry. Teaching for Ophthalmology. January 3, 1974. UAB Archives, University of 
Alabama Birmingham. 

21. Peters HB. Letter to the President of ASCO. Development of a Position 
Paper by ASCO. February 28, 1974. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

22. Peters HB.  Letter to Dr. Carlton Evans, Director of Health Services Research 
and Development Service (VACO).  Letter of Intent for Research Proposal Exploring 
Role Relationships between Ophthalmology and Optometry. May 9, 1975. UAB 
Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

23. Peters HB.  Memorandum to Dr. Hal Skalka.  Interdisciplinary Program. June 
10, 1975. UAB Archives. University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

24. Peters HB. Letter to Dr. Ken Myers.  Present Status of Council on Eye Care 
for VA Medical District #11. July 14, 1975. UAB Archives.  University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

25. Peters HB. Report to the Academic Health Affairs Committee, VA Medical 
District #11. August 21, 1975. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

26. Slaughter RL. Hospital Memorandum 11-15 related to the Optometry Service.  
February 25, 1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama. 

27. Newcomb RN.  Personal Communication. April 26, 2010. 
28. Whittington RM.  Letter to Director of VAH, Birmingham, AL. May 12, 1976. 

UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 
29. Peters HB. Memorandum to Dr. S. Richardson Hill. VA Organizational Chart 

– Optometry. May 20, 1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 
30. Whittington RN.  Letter to Hospital Director Birmingham VAH. June 15, 1976. 

UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 
31. Peters HB. Letter to Mr. W. W. Wadsworth, State of Alabama, Department of 

Veterans Affairs. June 4, 1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 
32. Peters HB. Memorandum to Dr. W. F. Holdefer, Assistant Chief, Medical 

Director for Professional Services, VACO. Materials Related to Optometry. July 20, 
1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

33. Liles DR. Report of Contact. Sent to Mr. Michael Homyak, Planning Service, 
VACO. July 29, 1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

34. Peters HB. Letter to Paul A. L. Haber, Assistant Chief, Medical Director for 
Professional Services, VACO. August 12, 1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

35. Peters HB. Letter to Dr. Paul Haber, Assistant Chief, Medical Director for 
Professional Services, VACO. August 25, 1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham.  



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 64 
 

36. Newcomb RD, Potter JW. Diagnostic outcomes of optometric referrals in a 
VA Medical Center. J Am Optom Assoc 1979; 50: 881-887. 

37. Newcomb RD, Potter JW. Diagnostic outcomes of optometric referrals in a 
VA Medical Center – Part II.  J Am Optom Assoc 1981; 52: 599-604.  

38. Peters HB. Memorandum to School of Optometry Faculty. Good News from 
Washington. October 5, 1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

39. Peters HB. Memorandum to Dr. S. Richardson Hill. Interdisciplinary Matters. 
October 6, 1976. UAB Archives. University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

40. Wirtschafter JD. Letter to Dr. Kenneth J. Myers, Director of Optometry 
Service, VA. Resolution passed by the Association of University Professors of 
Ophthalmology, November 7, 1976. November 10, 1976. UAB Archives, University of 
Alabama at Birmingham. 

41. Wallis NE. Memorandum to Drs. Hopping, Peters Haffner. Rationale and 
Response to AUPO Letters of the VA. November 23, 1976. UAB Archives, University of 
Alabama at Birmingham. 

42. Peters HB. Memorandum to Dr. Norman Wallis. Position Statement of ASCO 
on P. L. 94-581. December 30, 1976. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

43. Wallis NE. President of the Association of Schools and Colleges of 
Optometry. Statement of Position Relative to the Implementation of Optometric 
Participation in Veterans Administration Hospitals and Clinics under P. L. 94-581. 
Submitted January 5, 1977. 

44. Kleinstein RN, Newcomb RD. A descriptive epidemiological study of 
optometry services in the Birmingham Veterans Administration Hospital. J Am Optom 
Assoc 1976; 47: 1542-1545. 

45. Townsend J. Personal Communication. May 9, 2013. 
 

 
APPENDIX I 
Interprofessional Relations Between Optometry and Ophthalmology at UAB 

It is not surprising that the funding and support of an optometry service in the 
BVAH would be a cause for concern on the part of ophthalmology.  It was apparent to 
both local ophthalmologists and those on the national level, that the establishment of an 
optometry teaching clinic in the BVAH could have far reaching implications for both 
professions. 

 
As early as October 23, 1972, Dr. Ralph Z. Levene, Chairman of the University of 

Alabama, School of Medicine’s Department of Ophthalmology, wrote to Mr. Clyde Cox, 
Director of BVAH, Dr. Clifton Meador, Dean of the UA School of Medicine and Dr. S. 
Richardson Hill, Vice President for Health Affairs at UAB seeking clarification as to 
whether physicians had ultimate responsibility for patient care.1  On November 15, 1972 
Mr. Cox wrote a Report of Contact memo in which he reported the findings of Dr. 
Benjamin Wells, Deputy Chief Medical Director, VACO.  Dr. Wells had called Mr. Cox 
concerning the question raised by Dr. Hill on patients referred to the clinical optometry 
facility.  Dr. Wells had this question investigated by the legal department.  It was 
determined that no law addressed this question and that policy is established by the 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 65 
 

Administrator of the VA and the Chief Medical Director as to the treatment of veterans.  
In summary, Dr. Wells stated that no case could be made about anything that would be 
in the law or regulations that would prevent an optometrist from doing anything he does 
in a private sector.2  In other words, it was generally the policy to follow traditional 
patterns as prevailed in private practice. 
 

On November 23, 1973, Dr. Levene sent a Memorandum to Drs. Hill, Pittman 
(Dean, UASOM), Peters and Aldrete.3  In this memo he included a schematic outline of 
an Ophthalmology-Optometry Program in the VA and a request for additional funding for 
new space for ophthalmology as an independent service in the Medical-Surgical Unit of 
the BVAH instead of as a Division of Surgery.  He also presented a detailed joint 
proposal for optometry and ophthalmology for the Blind Rehabilitation Program and 
incorporation of adjacent space for the two professions within an expanded BRC.  
Under the heading “Logistics of Patient Care Between the Two Professions” Dr. Levene 
stated that most patients will be seen first by optometry except for direct referrals to 
ophthalmology, patients requesting to be seen by ophthalmology or those with obvious 
disease requiring the services of ophthalmology.  To monitor appropriate referrals from 
optometry to ophthalmology, a flexible set of criteria for referral was to be established, 
as well as periodic referrals on a random basis to allow comparison of the results of the 
examinations of the two professions.  The sample size was to be determined by 
ophthalmology.  This methodology was to be utilized to assess the adequacy of the 
referrals and examinations by each profession.  Referrals to other medical and surgical 
units were to be made only after consultation with ophthalmology. 
 

In a subsequent Memorandum entitled “Teaching Optometrists by 
Ophthalmologists” sent on January 2, 1974 to all staff members and senior residents, 
Dr. Levene outlined five items related to this broader issue.4   This memo was also 
copied to Drs. Hill, Pittman, and Peters.  These were as follows: 

1.  The ophthalmology community will teach optometrists to detect ocular disease for 
referral. 

2. Such teaching will stop immediately if optometry proposes unilateral legislation 
unacceptable to ophthalmology. 

3. Referrals from optometrists to ophthalmologists must be distributed to many in the 
community, particularly younger ophthalmologists staring out, rather than a select 
few.  Any pattern of referrals by the School of Optometry that is unacceptable to 
the community of ophthalmologists will result in cessation of teaching. 

4. All teaching by ophthalmologists should be channeled through the official 
Combined Eye Program.  If optometry accepts independent teaching by other 
individual ophthalmologists the teaching through the combined Program in 
Ophthalmology will stop. 

5. The ophthalmologists will be compensated for their time by a fee from the School 
of Optometry. 

 
Not surprisingly Dr. Peters, after consulting with faculty members and those in the 

optometric   community, responded to Dr. Levene’s proposal.  On February 22, 1974, 
he answered by responding to each proposition as well as sharing his own concerns 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 66 
 

regarding this memo.5  (Due to the length of the letter some of the responses have been 
paraphrased). 

1.  The statement that the ophthalmological community will teach optometry students 
to detect ocular disease for referral is inadequate.  Since the community does not 
teach does this mean the Department of Ophthalmology will assume this 
relationship (a proper interdepartmental relationship in a university?).  Secondly, 
the very restrictive implications of “detect ocular disease for referral” seems to 
preclude knowledge about, understanding of ocular disease or ocular 
manifestations of systemic disease and the necessary decision making process by 
the optometrist as to whether or not to refer.  The more optometry students know 
about ocular disease, the better they will be able to serve the public. 

2. This statement is that teaching will stop if optometry (any optometrist?) proposes 
unilateral legislation unacceptable to ophthalmology (any ophthalmologist?).  Dr. 
Peters could not agree to give such assurance or carry it out if given.   Neither the 
Alabama State Board of Optometry nor the Alabama Optometric Association 
would give him the right to bargain away their political birthright for any purpose, 
nor should they.  As an alternate solution Dr. Peters proposes the formation of an 
Alabama Inter-professional Committee on Eye Care.  This Committee, composed 
of individuals of common purpose, open minded men of good will could consider 
in open discussion all legislative matters affecting either or both professions.  With 
such a committee there is a good possibility of establishing communication and 
cooperation – instead of the coercion implied in his (Dr. Levene’s) statement. 

3. The statement regarding referrals seems to imply that the “ophthalmological 
community” wishes to control or direct referrals from the School of Optometry to 
“deserving” ophthalmologists and again the coercive phrase (referring to the 
“ophthalmological community”, I believe).  Dr. Peters states he believes this (such 
controlling action) would violate medical ethics.  The faculty will refer their patients 
to that practitioner or those practitioners whom they feel will best serve their 
patient’s needs.  This (referral) usually involves some cooperation between the 
optometrist and ophthalmologist and if the young ophthalmologists cooperate with 
faculty (even be reasonably courteous and not make unnecessarily derogatory 
comments to patients) in other words, behave in a civil manner, they will receive 
referrals. 

4. This statement relates to control of “all teaching by ophthalmologists” by the 
“official Combined Eye Program”.  I believe this is unnecessarily restrictive unless 
the “official Combined Eye Program” is exceptionally responsive to our needs and 
has within its staff experts in all aspects of vision care.  The School does call on 
outside consultants, experts, researchers, etc., with unique knowledge to 
supplement knowledge of the faculty for the benefit of students.  Since the School 
is responsible for the student’s education, it must be responsible for those 
individuals brought in to teach, be they regular faculty, consultants or whatever. 

5. The School has agreed from the start to compensate those who teach students.  
By the same token the School wishes to monitor and evaluate the teaching 
effectiveness of the faculty (or others). 

 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 67 
 

Dr. Peters then discusses several other considerations he wishes to bring to Dr. 
Levene’s attention.  These matters are as follows: 

a)  Dr. Peters believes that in a university there is a general obligation to teach, that 
is, to transmit existing knowledge to bona fide students.  In this regard Dr. Peters 
believes it is Dr. Levene’s department’s obligation to teach School of Optometry 
students (one might assume Dr. Peters is referring primarily to professional 
students since this was the only program that existed at this time in the School).  
Furthermore, Dr. Peters states that you (Dr. Levene and the Department of 
Ophthalmology) should do this out of self-interest.  The more sophisticated the 
optometry students (and optometrists) become with regard to ocular disease and 
ocular manifestations of systemic disease, the better and more competent they 
will become in referring appropriate patients to ophthalmologists. 

b) It seems to Dr. Peters that this exchange of faculty resources should be a two-way 
street.  The School has some exceptionally knowledgeable and talented young 
faculty in basic visual science, who have much to offer ophthalmology residents.  
Dr. Peters acknowledges the traditional trip ophthalmology residents make to New 
Hampshire or California for basic visual science.  Dr. Peters thinks that Dr. Levene 
should consider strengthening this training by using the School’s basic visual 
science faculty on the same basis as the School of Optometry would use the 
faculty of the Department of Ophthalmology.  Dr. Peters also feels the School’s 
clinical faculty could also contribute to the department of ophthalmology’s program 
in such areas as low vision, contact lenses and binocular vision.  Such an 
interaction between the two faculties would do much to establish the kind of 
cooperative climate for future practice they both desire. 

c) The problem of Dr. Darrell Rains is one that concerns Dr. Peters.  First, each of 
the faculty and a number of community optometrists had referred patients to him 
with a wide variety of ocular conditions.  He has been uniformly courteous, helpful 
and skillful in his handling of these patients.  None of the faculty or community 
optometrists had even hinted at “unnecessary surgery” and, while one may say it 
is not optometry’s place to judge, optometrists are not without experience in such 
matters.  If Dr. Rains has been forced to resign from the staff of Eye Foundation 
Hospital because of his obvious cooperation with the School of Optometry, then I 
am deeply disturbed.  When Dr. Rains leaves, as he is planning to do, that will 
reduce optometry’s options and it will be forced to deal with the “ophthalmological 
community” which does not include Dr. Rains.  If, Dr. Levene, your commitment is 
to deal fairly, honestly and courteously with the patients referred, and the 
optometrists, then this new arrangement will work; but if you use the coercive 
tactics expressed in your memo, it will not. 

 
Finally Dr. Peters makes a genuine plea for Dr. Levene to drop the adversarial 

posture and make a real effort to treat each other and the patients in cooperation, 
harmony, courtesy and mutual respect.  Dr. Peters believes such a spirit can make a 
real contribution to the visual welfare of the public and demonstrate to each profession 
that such a working relation can be beneficial to all.  Dr. Peters pledges himself to such 
an effort. 

 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 68 
 

On February 26, 1974 Dr. Levene responded to Dr. Peters’ reply.6  In this 
response, Dr. Levene stated he believes that all questions raised by Dr. Peters can be 
satisfactorily resolved except the ones relating to his statement that teaching will stop if 
optometry proposes unilateral legislation unacceptable to ophthalmology.  Since this is 
the most important point and historically the reason teaching was withdrawn he chose to 
limit his remarks to this subject. 

 
Dr. Levene shared a copy of a proposed resolution on Ophthalmology-Optometry 

with Dr. Peters. Dr. Peters subsequently sent this proposal to Dr. William R. Baldwin.7  
An up-to-date ophthalmological viewpoint on this subject and related matters had been 
proposed by Drs. John Henderson, Ralph Levene and Robert Reinecke as an unofficial 
position paper for the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) 
and presented to the group on November 5, 1973.  The paper was received but not 
voted on at the time it was received. 

 
In essence ophthalmology was bitterly opposed to significant portions of 

legislation by optometry because such teaching had not only been used to increase the 
skills of optometrists, but as a powerful weapon in legislative battles between the two 
professions.  Dr. Levene acknowledged it was optometry’s birthright to propose, politic 
and fight for legislation it believed in but it was also ophthalmology’s birthright to do the 
same if they believed such legislation is wrong.  In a teaching institution ophthalmology 
feels an obligation to teach but only if it has a guarantee that such teaching will not be 
used against them in legislative battles.  Furthermore, he claims Dr. Peters persists in 
separating teaching and legislation but in the legislative battles optometry fuses the two.  
Ophthalmology on the other hand views the two within one framework and will not 
consider one without the other.  Even where teaching does not enter directly in 
optometry’s legislative proposals it does not make sense to teach on one hand and fight 
on the other.  Dr. Levene concluded by echoing Dr. Peters’ suggestion of an inter-
professional committee to consider all problems within the two groups. 

 
References 

1. Levene RZ. Letter to Medical Executive Committee. Relationship Between 
Ophthalmology and Optometry Within the VAH Hospital. October 23, 1972. UAB 
Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

2. Cox CG. Report of Contact to Dr. Benjamin B. Wells, Deputy Chief Medical 
Director, VACO. November 15, 1972. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

3. Levene RZ. Memorandum to Drs. Hill, Pittman, Peters, and Aldrete. 
Ophthalmology-Optometry Combined Program, VAH Birmingham, Including Blind 
Rehabilitation Center. November, 23, 1973. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

4. Levene RZ. Memorandum to All Staff Members and Senior Residents of the 
Eye Foundation Hospital. Teaching Optometrists by Ophthalmologists. January 2, 
1974. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 69 
 

5. Peters HB. Memorandum to Dr. Ralph Z Levene. Teaching Optometry 
Students by Ophthalmological Faculty. February 22, 1974. UAB Archives, University of 
Alabama at Birmingham. 

6. Levene RZ. Memorandum to Dr. Henry B. Peters. Teaching Optometrists by 
Ophthalmologists. February 26, 1974. UAB Archives, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham. 

7. Peters HB. Letter to Dr.William R. Baldwin, President of ASCO. Development 
of a Position Paper by ASCO in Response to Resolution Proposed but not Passed by 
the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology. February 28, 1974. UAB 
Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 
 

 
APPENDIX II 
New Federal Legislation 

Appendix II has been included because of the unique and accurate forecasting 
for the future of VA optometry that is contained in it, as well the appearance, in part, of 
this important information in the Congressional Record. 

 
In an effort to resolve deficiencies in the Nation’s health care system, the one 

issue on which consensus existed, was the need to develop the necessary numbers 
and types of health professionals to meet the needs of a growing population.  To this 
end, the U.S. Congress had recently enacted the Comprehensive Health Manpower 
Training Act of 1971.  Based on the scope of this Act it was of great importance to the 
American Optometric Association (AOA) that it be included, involved in and work to 
support the passage of this legislation.  This Act amended the Health Professions 
Educational Assistance Act (HPEAA) of 1963 which among other features provided 
financial assistance to health profession schools and colleges to increase manpower 
(workforce).  This Act and subsequent legislation provide financial assistance to many 
schools and colleges of optometry including UABSO. 

 
Alan M. Cranston served as a U.S. Senator for 24 years (D-California).  He 

served on two occasions as the Senate Majority Whip and one as the Senate Minority 
Whip (1997-1990).  From 1977 to 1981 he served as the Chair of the Senate Veteran’s 
Affairs Committee.  Senator Cranston had a keen interest in health care manpower and 
health care policy issues.  The summary that follows was published in the Senate 
Congressional Record on March 23, 1972.1   

 
On March 2, 1972, Senator Cranston addressed the annual meeting of the 

Western States Optometric Conference.  In his address Senator Cranston commented 
on issues such as manpower (workforce) distribution and the need for more 
optometrists, perhaps as many as 15,500 additional by 1980, the extension of the 
Health Manpower Educational Assistance Act in the fall of 1971 and the retention of 
federal support for optometry schools and colleges under provisions of this Act.  In 
addition, he mentioned that congress had restored $1M for Special Project Grants and 
financial distress funding for schools of optometry as well as increasing the level of 
capitation support from 60% to 74%.  Finally he addressed the need for better utilization 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 70 
 

of existing physical facilities such as the Veterans Administration Hospitals as clinical 
teaching facilities for various health care specialties. 

 
Senator Cranston, who served as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and 

Hospitals of the Veterans Affairs Committee, introduced several bills to accomplish this 
purpose.  He introduced Senate Bill 2219 entitled the “Veterans Administration Health 
Manpower Training Act”.  The Act, if passed, would create a system in which fourth year 
students in optometry schools and colleges affiliated with VA facilities could take a 
portion of their clinical training in excellent clinical teaching settings in VA facilities, while 
improving the availability of visual services to eligible individuals through the VA health 
program.  This bill also included the important aspect of a program for continuing 
educational of professional and other health personnel on the staff of VA hospitals. 

 
Perhaps more germane to the discussion of optometry and BVAH was Senator 

Cranston’s next statement.  During this same address he announced the introduction of 
S 2354 which was the proposed “Health Care Expansion Act of 1972”.  Senator 
Cranston stated during subcommittee hearings related to this Bill on February 16, 1972 
he offered an amendment to establish the position Director of Optometry in the 
Veterans Administration, Department of Medicine and Surgery.  Furthermore, the 
subcommittee had voted unanimously to report favorably on the Bill and the amendment 
to the full committee.  This new position Director of Optometry would be at the same 
level as the VA’s heads of other professional disciplines. 

 
Senator Cranston also announced to the attendees at this same conference that 

the VA had just initiated an affiliation between the UAB School of Optometry and BVAH 
to provide a pilot training program for optometrists and optometric technicians.  He 
acknowledged this as the first such program in the VA System and stated it could serve 
as a model for similarly affiliated accredited schools and colleges of optometry and 
nearby VA teaching hospitals after S 2219 and S 2354 are enacted.  Ultimately Public 
Law 93-82 created the position of Director of Optometry in 1973, PL 94-581 created a 
Director of Optometry Services in 1976 and subsequent Congressional and Agency 
Reports were instrumental in the Veterans Omnibus Health Care Act of 1976 which 
served to establish Optometry as a section reporting to either the Surgical Service or 
Chief-of-Staff.  It also improved the compensation of optometrists by removing them 
from Civil Service and placing them under Title 38. 

 
Reference 
1. Address by Senator Cranston before the Western States Optometric 

Conference. Congressional Record-Senate. S 4694-S 4695. March 23, 1972. UAB 
Archives, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 71 
 

Notes on Optometric Education Around the Beginning 
of the Twentieth Century 
 
David A. Goss, O.D., Ph.D. 
School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, dgoss@indiana.edu 
 
Abstract 
 Optometric education existed in various forms around the beginning of the 
twentieth century.  Backgrounds of the proprietors of the schools and the length of study 
varied from school to school.  This article provides an overview of optometric education 
at that time and of some of the schools. 
 
Key words: optometric education, optometry history 
 
 
 At the beginning of the twentieth century, the term optometry had not yet become 
common, and its practice was often referred to as “optics.”  Optometrists referred to 
themselves by terms such as opticians or sight testers.  Optometry (or optics) schools 
had attendance or correspondence options and the requirements and length of study 
varied from school to school.  In an 1899 issue of Optical Journal, there was a 
“Directory of Reputable Optical Colleges.”1  There was no indication of the criteria by 
which such a list was established.  The schools listed were as follows: 
 
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 
 Kellam & Moore’s College of Optics. 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 
 Chicago Ophthalmic College and Hospital, 607 Van Buren St., Dr. H.M. Martin, 
President. 
 Northern Illinois College of Ophthalmology and Otology, Masonic Temple, Drs. 
J.B. and G.W. McFatrich, Pres. and Sec. 
 McCormick Optical College, 84 Adams St., Dr. Charles McCormick, Pres. 
LA PORTE, INDIANA 
 Hutchinson School, J.L. Hutchinson, Supt. 
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 
 South Bend College of Optics, Dr. H.A. Thomson. 
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 
 Klein School of Optics, 2 Rutland St., August Klein, M.D., Pres. 
 New England Optical Institute, 3 Winter St., C.E. Tucker, Sec. 
 Dr. Edwin S. Foster, Private, 120 Tremont St. 
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 
 Detroit Optical Institute, Dr. John S. Owen. 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 
 Kansas City Optical College, Tenth and Walnut Sts., Dr. J.T. Hamilton. 
NEW YORK CITY 
 Spencer Optical Institute, 15 Maiden Lane, J.E. Spencer, Pres. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 72 
 

 American Ophthalmic Institute, 177 Broadway, Dr. R.H. Knowles. 
 L.L. Ferguson, 32 Maiden Lane. 
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 
 Syracuse School of Optics, Hitchcock & Morse. 
MCMINNVILLE, OREGON 
 Dr. C.W. Lowe, Private. 
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 
 Philadelphia Optical College, 1435 Chestnut St., Dr. C.H. Brown, Pres. 
TORONTO, CANADA 
 Optical Institute of Canada, 88 Yonge St., Dr. W.E. Hamill. 
 
  
 The optometry schools of the day were for-profit enterprises, and the 
backgrounds of their proprietors varied.  Some schools were run by doctors of medicine, 
some by optometrists, and some by optical companies presumably to train people to 
use the goods that they sold.  Gregg2 noted that in the 1890s, the Spencer Optical 
Company gave a two-week refraction course, and the King Optical Company of 
Cleveland, Ohio and New York City gave a one-week course for jewelers to learn the 
fitting of glasses.  The Spencer Optical Company taught use of the Audemaire Trial 
Case which they manufactured.  The King company made the Elite Test Case.3   
 
 There was no standardization of educational programs.  Some described as 
post-graduate were designed to educate those who were already doing optometric work 
at some level.  The Julius King Optical Company of 14 Maiden Lane, New York, 
announced “a post-graduate course in refraction” in an 1896 issue of Optical Journal.  
The advertisement stated: “beginning February 1 and continuing indefinitely thereafter, 
we have arranged to give advanced individual private instruction, to those who have 
been making a specialty of Refraction and the mechanical adjustment of frames.  These 
courses will embrace instruction in the use of the Ophthalmometer, Retinoscopy, 
Ophthalmoscope, Refractometer, Prisms, and kindred subjects.  Students may select, 
at their option, any or all of these studies.  Those desiring to avail themselves of this 
opportunity may make application at any time, as no regular classes will be formed.  We 
have found individual attention to students much more satisfactory to them and to 
ourselves.  Thorough and complete directions and actual practice in the use of Test 
Lenses will be given at any time to students who have had little or no experience in 
fitting eyes.”4  No statement was made in the advertisement about the length of time 
required to take that instruction, but it seems likely to have been variable depending on 
the subjects which students elected to study. 
 
 The backgrounds of optometry students varied.  They included doctors of 
medicine, jewelers, watchmakers, pharmacists, and others who wished to make “optics” 
their life’s work.  The following news item in the Optical Journal illustrates that varied 
background: “R.H. Bailey, M.D., of Mattoon, Ill., and M.E. Mosher, M.D., of Havana, Ill., 
are taking a course in optics at the Northern Illinois College of Ophthalmology & Otology 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 73 
 

of Chicago.  Charles F. Rauth, a jeweler of Springfield, Ill., is a recent graduate and Dr. 
W.B. Richardson, optician of Spokane, Wash., has had the degree ‘Doctor of Optics’ 
conferred upon him by the same institution.”1   
 
Northern Illinois College of Ophthalmology and Otology 
 One of the schools on the list above is the Northern Illinois College of 
Ophthalmology and Otology (NICOO), which is one of the predecessor schools of the 
present-day Illinois College of Optometry.  Dr. Henry Olin started the Chicago College of 
Ophthalmology and Otology in 1872.  In 1887, James McFatrich joined Olin in 
ophthalmology practice and as a member of Olin’s faculty.  McFatrich took over the 
school in 1889 when Olin retired.  In 1891, McFatrich changed the name of the school 
to NICOO.  George W. McFatrich joined the faculty in 1893.5  Before 1898, most of their 
students were doctors of medicine, but after that the majority of their students were 
jewelers, dispensing opticians, and refracting opticians.6    
 
Philadelphia Optical College 
 The Philadelphia Optical College was founded in 1889.  Its initial instructor and 
president was Christian Henry Brown, M.D.7  In 1900, the Philadelphia Optical College 
advertised six month, three month, one month, special, and post-graduate attendance 
courses and correspondence courses.  The shorter courses were designed for persons 
who were already doing optical work. 
 
Klein School of Optics 
 The Klein School of Optics was founded in 1894 by August Andreas Klein, who 
was born in Germany in 1846.  Klein came to the United States when he was 16 years 
old.8  Klein graduated from the Boston University School of Medicine in 1882, and he 
studied ophthalmology in Germany.  Klein School of Optics had a faculty of seven, 
including August Klein and three of his children.  The one year curriculum offered 
instruction in optics, anatomy, pathology, mathematics, physics, dispensing, and 
refraction.8  The tuition was $75 for a full course and $30 for a single term.  The name of 
the Klein School of Optics was changed to Massachusetts College of Optometry in 
1901.  It later became the New England College of Optometry.  
 
Hutchinson School 
 In 1886, J.R. Parsons started the Parsons Horological Institute in LaPorte, 
Indiana, to teach watchmaking.9,10  In 1888, A.J. Hutchinson went to work for Parsons.  
Shortly thereafter, Hutchinson resigned and with J.H. William Meyer founded the 
Hutchinson School of Watchmaking and Optics.  It is of interest that in 1892, Lydia 
Moss Bradley purchased the Parsons Institute and moved it to Peoria, Illinois, where it 
became the Bradley Polytechnic Institute and then later Bradley University.  The 
Bradley Polytechnic Institute offered instruction in optics until about 1926.11   
 
 An 1896 advertisement for the Hutchinson school said: “Optical Students cannot 
find a more comprehensive and complete course in Optics than that given at 
Hutchinson’s School for Watchmakers, Engravers and Opticians.  Next course 
commences January 6, 1896. J.H. Wm. Meyer, M.D., Lecturer in Optics…J.L. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 74 
 

Hutchinson, Supt., LaPorte, Ind.”4  It may be presumed that the Hutchinson School 
ceased operation by at least 1912 because the list of optometry schools in the 1912 
Blue Book of Optometrists and Opticians does not include it.11   
 
South Bend College of Optics 
 The South Bend College of Optics was founded in 1893.12   From 1893 to 1901 it 
offered attendance and correspondence courses.  In 1901, it discontinued the 
attendance courses to concentrate on the correspondence course.  In 1912, its 
president H.A. Thomson announced that it would start its attendance courses again.13  
South Bend College of Optics discontinued its operation in about 1920.11  In 1899, 
South Bend College of Optics charged $50 for its attendance course and $25 for its 
correspondence course.14  In 1903, it announced that its rate had been reduced to 
$7.50 for the correspondence course and Doctor of Optics diploma.15   
 

A 1906 advertisement for the South Bend College of Optics said that: “We settle 
the question of prisms.  Our course in optics tells you just when and how to prescribe 
prisms and when to let them alone.”  After claiming that their rules for prescribing prisms 
have “never been known to fail,” the advertisement mentions that the course teaches 
the correction of astigmatism and the use of the ophthalmoscope, retinoscope, and trial 
set.  The school also claimed to be “the most thorough and painstaking optical college 
in America.”16   
 

H.A. Thomson copyrighted his correspondence course in 1895.  It was reprinted 
in 1975 by Professional Press with a 30 page historical commentary by Monroe 
Hirsch.17  The course consisted of 180 pages in 20 lessons.  Each lesson had text to 
read and questions to answer plus a reading assignment from Hartridge on Refraction.  
There was a total of 333 questions.  Students were instructed that they were not to send 
in the answers to the questions except for the questions they received with lessons 18 
and 20 which served as the final examination for the course.  For all other questions 
Thomson sent answers and explanations with the next set of lessons.  Students were 
also advised to purchase a blank notebook and write down rules that were presented in 
each lesson, a total of 214 rules in the 20 lessons.  The course was designed to be a 
ten week course with two lessons sent to students each week. 

 
A diploma was awarded to those students who achieved the requisite score on 

the final examination.  H.A. Thomson was not only president of the South Bend College 
of Optics, but also president of the Thomson Optical Company which sold trial sets and 
other optical equipment. 

 
Lessons 1-5 covered propagation of light, reflection, refraction by curved 

surfaces and lenses, spherical aberration, and chromatic aberration.  Topics in lessons 
6-8 were refraction by the eye, accommodation, and convergence. Lessons 9 and 10 
dealt with subjective refraction, the cobalt blue test, estimating refractive error with 
ophthalmoscopy, and retinoscopy.   

 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 75 
 

In lesson 9, Thomson expresses a negative opinion of the use of optometers.  
This passage also gives a description of the optometers in use at that time: “Although I 
hope none of my pupils will ever be so unscientific as to use an optometer, it is 
desirable to understand the principles upon which it is constructed.  The common 
optometer consists of a convex lens through which the patient looks at a card attached 
to a slide.  The card is moved until seen most distinctly, when we have the focus of that 
eye.  If it stopped at the principal focus of the lens we know that the rays emerged 
parallel and that he is emmetropic.  If beyond the principal focus they emerged 
converging showing him to be hypermetropic;  if nearer than the focus, diverging, and 
he is myopic.  By marking the slide at different distances we have only to look where the 
card stands and the number tells us the glass required.  Other more complicated 
optometers are upon the market, but are based upon the same principle.  The objection 
is that accommodation, convergence, astigmatism, etc., are not considered, thus 
rendering the instruments inaccurate.”18   

 
Hypermetropia, myopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia were the subjects of 

lessons 11, 12, 13, and 14, respectively.  Lessons 15 and 16 were entitled “Practical 
Work,” and looked at general tips in conducting an examination, illuminating and 
equipping the examination room, order of testing, questions to ask the patient during 
testing, and prescription of lenses.  Retinoscopy was presented in more depth in lesson 
17 than the introduction to it in lesson 10. 

 
In lesson 18, the student learned about converting optical crosses to 

prescriptions, transposing prescriptions, distinguishing types of astigmatism (mixed, 
simple, compound), lens materials, and ordering lenses and frames.  Topics in lesson 
19 were heterophoria and prisms.  Testing procedures described in this lesson are what 
we would recognize as the von Graefe and Maddox rod phoria tests.  Among the rules 
that students were told to copy into their notebooks were rules 199 and 200: “In 
prescribing prisms never give over one-half to two-thirds the full correction….Patients to 
whom prisms are given should be requested to return in about two weeks for re-
examination of the eyes.”19  In lesson 20 there was further discussion of heterophoria 
and mention of some common diseases such as cataract, pterygium, glaucoma, 
nystagmus, and tobacco and alcohol amblyopia, as well as the recommendation that: “A 
hand-book of the different diseases of the eye should be in every optician’s library for 
constant reference and study.”20   

 
Thomson closed lesson 20 with words of encouragement: “Our course of lessons 

is ended.  The course of study upon your part is, I hope, just begun.  I have endeavored 
to guide you on the right path of study and research in this interesting science, until you 
would have a sufficient understanding of the work to enable you to continue upon your 
own footing….Hoping that you may attain the highest position in the field which you 
have chosen, and with many thanks for your kind co-operation in making this course a 
pleasure and success, I am, Your Friend and Teacher, Dr. H.A. Thomson.”21   
 
References 
 1. Optical J Supp 1899;5:31. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 76 
 

 2. Gregg JR. The Story of Optometry. New York: Ronald Press, 1965:218-219.  
 3. Cox ME. Optometry, The Profession: Its Antecedents, Birth, and Development, 
rev. ed. Philadelphia: Chilton, 1957:43-44. 

4. Optical J 1896;2:37. 
 5. Miller AR, Brown JM. Optometry in America: A History of the Illinois College of 
Optometry 1872-1997. Chicago: Illinois College of Optometry, 1996:19-24,129. 
 6. Miller AR, Brown JM. Optometry in America: A History of the Illinois College of 
Optometry 1872-1997. Chicago: Illinois College of Optometry, 1996:23. 
 7. Goss DA. Christian Henry Brown (1857-1933) and the Philadelphia Optical 
College. Hindsight: J Optom Hist 2010;41:114-121. 

8. Moline SW. Century of Vision – The New England College of Optometry: An 
Anecdotal History of the First Hundred Years. Boston: New England College of 
Optometry, 1994:3-7. 

9. Reed DR. The Indiana optometry heritage: the first optometrist in LaPorte. 
Indiana J Optom 1999;2:19-20. 

10. Brown A. Bradley University and its watchmaking past. 
www.peoriamagazines.com/print/7998. Accessed Sept. 4, 2012. 

11. Goss DA. A historical list of optometry schools in the United States. 
Hindsight: J Optom Hist 2012;43:82-89. 

12. Blue Book of Optometrists and Opticians. Chicago: The Optometrist and 
Optician, 1912:16. 

13. Thomson HA. New attendance courses announced by South Bend College of 
Optics. Optical J Rev Optom 1912;29:1421. 

14. Optical J Supp 1899;5:53. 
15. Optical J 1903;12:144. 
16. Optical J 1906;17:378. 
17. Dr. Thomson’s 1895 Correspondence Course in Optics with Historical 

Commentary by Monroe J. Hirsch. Chicago: Professional Press, 1975. 
18. Dr. Thomson’s 1895 Correspondence Course in Optics with Historical 

Commentary by Monroe J. Hirsch. Chicago: Professional Press, 1975:82. 
19. Dr. Thomson’s 1895 Correspondence Course in Optics with Historical 

Commentary by Monroe J. Hirsch. Chicago: Professional Press, 1975:171. 
20. Dr. Thomson’s 1895 Correspondence Course in Optics with Historical 

Commentary by Monroe J. Hirsch. Chicago: Professional Press, 1975:179. 
21. Dr. Thomson’s 1895 Correspondence Course in Optics with Historical 

Commentary by Monroe J. Hirsch. Chicago: Professional Press, 1975:180. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 77 
 

“Optometrist of the Stars”: His Wife Remembers 
 
Les-Lee Roland  
6023 Bonaventure Place, Sarasota, FL 34243 
 
 
 The news reporters called him the “Optometrist of the Stars” and my husband, 
Harold “Doc” Roland earned and deserved the name.  Originally from Detroit, he and I 
have for the past 24 years been residents of Sarasota, Florida.  Harold died in January, 
2013 at the ripe age of 94. 
 
 Roland took care of countless famous patients of the entertainment world, 
starting with the Motown Artists.  His reputation spread to celebrities in New York and 
California.  Famous folks sought him out in Southfield, Michigan for his expertise and 
proficiency in providing eyewear that was not only functional but also very chic and 
outstanding. 
 
 I recall his involvement with Michael Jackson.  The Jackson people contacted our 
office about designing a signature pair of glasses Michael could wear and also give 
away or endorse.  We went back and forth with costs and distribution only to have his 
team finally decline the proposition.   However, we were asked to invest in Jackson’s 
other endorsements, including stuffed animals that were to be promoted in movie 
theatres with proceeds going to charity.  There is a sad part of this adventure.  There 
was a good presentation from Michael’s co-producer and mentor, Quincy Jones, so we 
and mutual friends did invest.  Needless to say, once Michael’s legal actions began, 
everything was shelved; he lost his endorsements, and we lost our investment! 

 
Harold took care of many Motown entertainers, including Berry Gordy’s family, 

Marvin Gaye, and others, John Denver, Johnny Mathis, and local TV stars.  Our office 
provided eyewear for album covers for Bob Seeger’s group as well. 

 
I remember when he fitted Peggy Cass with contacts to wear on stage.  She 

freaked out after the first performance!  Why?  Ms. Cass said she had never been able 
to see anyone in the front row before, and now that she could, it threw her off. 

 
And then there was a “Damon Runyan” character who came into the office and 

asked “Doc” Roland to make him some special contact lenses that had a yellow cast to 
them in order to read the marked cards in high stake games.  

 
Another interesting story:  we got a call from a man in Dubai, who had seen an 

unusual pair of glasses on someone working there and wanted the same frame.  We 
told him he had to be custom measured for this frame, so he flew in from Dubai and 
ordered several pairs.  The frame was so unusual.  You and the patient selected the 
shape for the lenses and instead of temples, the lenses were drilled to hold two almost 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 78 
 

invisible “cat gut” wires that were connected to the earpieces on each side.  It looked 
like the lenses were just floating in the front of the face. 

 
Actor John Amos wore this frame as well. It was very fragile, but the appearance 

was startling and an attention getter. 
 

 
 

Figure 1. Dr. Roland with Johnny Mathis 
 
Harold’s involvement with celebrities included playing in golf tournaments with 

persons such as James Garner, Jack Jones, and Jamie Farr.  And when stars were 
touring in the Detroit area, Harold put together tee times for them. 

 
In addition to practice, Harold hosted his own radio talk show, made many 

television appearances.  Before he became an optometrist, he was a singer on radio 
and appeared often with a comic named Amos Jacobs.  Amos later changed his name 
to Danny Thomas when he left the radio show.   

 
Harold also was part owner of a horse farm and had many winning 

thoroughbreds, including the #2 horse in the country in 1971.  “Governor Max” won the 
Washington Futurity and was unfortunately injured while being shipped to the next race 
before the Kentucky Derby.  He also won Breeder of the Year Award in Michigan.  
  

Dr. Harold Rowland graduated from the Northern Illinois College of Optometry 
(now called ICO) and served in the army during World War II for over five years, 
handling vision problems for U.S. soldiers and German prisoners of war.  Up to the very 
end, he enjoyed talking with new optometrists and offering advice. 
 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 79 
 

William Kitchiner (1775-1827), Author of The Economy 
of the Eyes 
 
David A. Goss, O.D., Ph.D. 
School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, dgoss@indiana.edu 
 
Abstract 
 William Kitchiner (1775-1827) was variously described as a physician, optician, 
musician, and gastronome.  This paper provides a brief biographical sketch and 
comments on his book The Economy of the Eyes. 
 
Key words: optometry books, optometry history, telescopes 
 
 
 William Kitchiner was born in London, England and lived most of his life there.  
He attended medical school in Glasgow.  Most references state that he held an M.D. 
degree, but Bridge and English questioned whether he completed the degree.1-4  He 
inherited a large annual income from his father, and he never practiced medicine. 
 
 Some publications refer to Kitchiner as an optician.2,3  This may have been due 
to his years of work on telescopes, but it has also been stated that he sold spectacles 
“from his home and other outlets.”5   He claimed to have invented a telescope with 
variable magnification, but John Herschel called it “Mr. G. Dollond’s Pancratic 
Telescope.”6  
 
 Kitchiner’s interests also extended to music and food.  In fact, he is best known 
for his book The Cook’s Oracle, which went through many editions.  Bridge and English 
called it “most extraordinary, the most entertaining and the most bizarre cookery book of 
the nineteenth century.”7   They believed that the source of the book’s success was 
Kitchiner’s “meticulous attention to detail.”8  Kitchiner also emphasized that fresh food 
and a balanced diet were important.9  He held dinner parties with regular guests he 
called the Committee of Taste to try out recipes. 
 
 Kitchiner authored many books, the first two of which were A Companion to the 
Telescope (1811) and Practical Observations on Telescopes (1815).  The Cook’s 
Oracle was first published in 1817.  That was followed by Practical Observations on 
Telescopes, Opera Glasses, and Spectacles in 1818, Observations of Vocal Music in 
1821, and Directions for Invigorating and Prolonging Life in 1822.  The Economy of the 
Eyes was published in two parts in 1824 and 1825.  Part I had the subtitle Precepts of 
the Improvement and Preservation of the Sight, and the subtitle for Part II was Of 
Telescopes.  His other books were The Housekeeper’s Ledger (1825) and The 
Traveller’s Oracle (1827).  
 
 Part I of The Economy of the Eyes contained information on vision and guidance 
for the general public on selection and use of spectacles.  On page 14, Kitchiner 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 80 
 

advised that: “When You go to an Optician’s to choose Spectacles, the first thing to 
attend to is to look at a Book with each eye alternately, – and carefully ascertain if You 
see equally well, with both Eyes, with the same Glass, at exactly the same distance.  
Inequality of the focus of the Eyes is much more common than is generally supposed.” 
 
 As could be expected, much of the advice related to presbyopia.  Kitchiner 
observed that: “The average period of the Eyes requiring Spectacles to read with, is 
about the 45th year.” (p. 24)  “The first indication of the Eye beginning to be impaired by 
Age, is that when You wish to read a small print, You are obliged to remove it further 
from your Eye than You have been accustomed to do…” (p. 25) 
 
 Kitchiner explained that the power of convex lenses needed for near vision 
increased with age.  He gave the focal length of convex lenses commonly required at 
various ages as: 36 inches at 40 years, 30 inches at 45 years, 24 inches at 50 years, 20 
inches at 55 years, 16 inches at 60 years, 14 inches at 65 years, 12 inches at 70 years, 
10 inches at 75 years, 9 inches at 80 years, 8 inches at 85 years, 7 inches at 90 years, 
and 6 inches at 100 years.  He noted that lenses were not convex enough if one had to 
hold a book far from the eyes, and they were too convex if one had to hold a book 
“nearer to your Eyes than when your Sight was good.” (p. 45) 
 
 A numbering of concave lenses that Kitchiner suggested came from Jesse 
Ramsden was: concave no. 1, 24 inches focus; concave no. 2, 21 inches focus; and 
concave no. 3, 18 inches.  Kitchiner noted that he himself was short-sighted and that he 
mostly wore a no. 2. 
 
 In Part I of The Economy of the Eyes Kitchiner gave advice on many other 
aspects of vision, such as types of illumination, use of window shutters, selection of 
spectacle frames, use of opera glasses, and getting a good view of the stage in various 
theaters.  He suggested that for determining proper power of spectacle lenses, an 
optometer can be used by persons who reside a long distance form an optician, but it is 
better to visit the optician and view through lenses if possible.     
 
References 

1. Hill B. Mrs. Beeton’s predecessor: William Kitchiner, M.D. (c.1775-1827). 
Practitioner 1952;168:624-627. 

2. Schiller F. Haslam of “Bedlam”, Kitchiner of the “Oracles”: two doctors under 
mad King George III, and their friendship. Med Hist 1984;28:189-201. 

3. Anonymous. Illustrations from the Wellcome Institute Library: Iconography of 
Dr. William Kitchiner (1775?-1827). Med Hist 1984;28:202-209. 

4. Bridge T, English CC. Dr. William Kitchiner Regency Eccentric, Author of the 
Cook’s Oracle. East Sussex, UK: Southover, 1992:43. 

5. Bridge T, English CC. Dr. William Kitchiner Regency Eccentric, Author of the 
Cook’s Oracle. East Sussex, UK: Southover, 1992:6. 

6. Rudd ME. Chromatic aberration of eyepieces in early telescopes. Annals Sci 
2007;64:1-18. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 81 
 

7. Bridge T, English CC. Dr. William Kitchiner Regency Eccentric, Author of the 
Cook’s Oracle. East Sussex, UK: Southover, 1992:xi. 

8. Bridge T, English CC. Dr. William Kitchiner Regency Eccentric, Author of the 
Cook’s Oracle. East Sussex, UK: Southover, 1992:xii. 

9. Bridge T, English CC. Dr. William Kitchiner Regency Eccentric, Author of the 
Cook’s Oracle. East Sussex, UK: Southover, 1992:37. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 82 
 

Robert Klark Graham (1906-1997) 
 
Editor’s Note: Jack Runninger suggested that Hindsight readers would be interested in 
learning something about the life of optometrist Robert K. Graham.  He submitted a 
column he recently wrote for Optometric Management and a copy of a talk given by 
Richard L. Hopping.  They are reprinted here with permission.  Runninger also 
suggested that an excerpt from Graham’s autobiography would be of interest, and he 
provided a copy of that book inscribed to him by Graham so such an excerpt could be 
included here.     
 
 
Lessons Learned: From Hard Resin Lenses to Sperm Banks 
 
Jack Runninger, O.D. 
runningerj@comcast.net 
 

Optometrist Robert Klark Graham was born in 1906, and died in 1997.   The 
story of his life is a fascinating tale.  Accomplished singer, then optometrist, then 
inventor, then multimillionaire, then famous geneticist. 
 
 “I wasted seven college years studying singing,” he said in his autobiography.  
Although his voice was described as being “almost exceptional” (he sang solos twice at 
the Metropolitan Opera House in New York), he discovered he wasn’t quite good 
enough to make a living at it.  An attorney friend of his family fortunately talked Graham 
into instead pursuing a career in optometry. 
 
The new career 
 The man was obviously brilliant.  He enrolled at Ohio State in 1935 to pursue his 
optometry degree.  Through persistence he finally convinced school authorities to allow 
him to take the four year course in just two years, since he had ranked in the upper 1% 
in the college’s entrance exam.   

 
Even so, he was over 30 years old by the time he got his degree.  After 

graduation he went to work for Bausch and Lomb and then Univis to participate in their 
research in making ophthalmic lenses out of plastic.   After the project was 
discontinued, Graham and his team left and formed their own company, Armorlite Lens 
Co. 

 
“We did not know how to manufacture a plastic lens successfully, but we knew 

(from the years of research at Univis) a great many things not to do,” he said. They 
were finally able to produce “superb” PMMA ophthalmic lenses.  They had but one fault.  
They were easily scratched. After further research they were successful in producing 
hard resin ophthalmic lenses, thirty times more resistant to scratching than PMMA, 
which have now almost completely replaced glass lenses.  To support himself during 
this research he opened an optometric practice limited solely to contact lenses. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 83 
 

 
Multitalented 

“It was slow, for in those days we had only scleral contact lenses, fitted by taking 
an impression of the eye,” he wrote in describing his practice.  “We considered four 
hours of wearing time quite successful.”  In addition he taught at Southern California 
College of Optometry, serving as associate professor of contact lens and low vision 
courses.  He is also credited with the introduction of a reflection-reducing coating for 
ophthalmic lenses, the development of colorless ultraviolet absorbing lenses, the 
invention of the variable focus lens, and the invention of the hybrid corneal lens. 

 
The sale of Armorlite and plastic lens patents made him a multimillionaire. Rather 

than retiring in luxury, in 1963, along with geneticist and Nobel Prize winner Herman 
Muller, he founded the Repository for Germinal Choice, a sperm bank which collected 
germinal material only from outstandingly intelligent and healthy men. 

 
The repository received great national publicity and attention.  Graham felt that 

this was a way to improve the intelligence of the human race.  Many critics felt that it 
was Hitler like tactics.  Evidently there are today almost 300 children conceived by the 
Graham repository.  Some are reportedly extremely intelligent, but many are not 
exceptional. 

 
 
Dr. Robert Klark Graham, Rotary Club of Escondido Recognition 
Luncheon, January 28, 1997 
 
Richard L. Hopping, O.D. 
rhoppingod@aol.com 
 
 It is a very great honor for me to be present today at the Rotary Club of 
Escondido meeting when you have chosen to honor a most distinguished and 
accomplished individual and leader, Dr. Robert Klark Graham.  I have had the privilege 
to know and admire him for these past 40 years.  As most of you have also known Dr. 
Graham for some time, you may be aware of his many accomplishments and honors.  
However, I should like to share some aspects of his impressive career with you so that 
all here might know of the magnitude of his long career and the impact he has had on 
his chosen profession and also the effect those successes have had on the many 
people who have enjoyed the benefits of his long career in research, contact lens 
development, low vision lenses and the Repository for Germinal Choice. 
 
 Dr. Graham is a man of many faces and many talents.  He is an optometrist, 
writer, lecturer, teacher, researcher, inventor, historian and manufacturer.  A person to 
be any one of these in a lifetime would be considered accomplished.  But for one to 
have succeeded in all is remarkable.  Robert Klark Graham proves to be a unique 
individual.  He has achieved in all of these areas, making many contributions to 
mankind over more than fifty years. 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 84 
 

 Dr. Graham was born in Harbor Springs, Michigan to Dr. Frank and Ellen Klark 
Graham in June, 1906.  He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Michigan State 
University and then matriculated at The Ohio State University where he worked in the 
field of applied optics, receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in 1937. 
 
 Following graduation, Dr. Graham was chosen by Bausch & Lomb Optical 
Company for special training in optical methods, remaining with that company until 
1940.  He then joined the Univis Company of Dayton, Ohio, which had begun research 
relating to plastic ophthalmic lenses.  When this project was discontinued by Univis six 
years later, Dr. Graham decided they had given up too soon.  So in 1947 Dr. Graham, 
taking three Univis research technicians with him to Pasadena, California, established a 
new company called Plastic Lens Company.  The name was later changed to Armorlite 
Lens Company, and is still one of the nation’s leading producers of ophthalmic lenses.  
At the same time he established a private optometric practice which he limited solely to 
contact lens service.  This was believed to be the first office in the nation to consistently 
remain limited to this specialty.  Dr. Graham was to write later that “it was slow for in 
those days we had only scleral contact lenses, fitted by taking an impression of the eye.  
We considered four hours wearing time quite successful.”  He also taught at the 
Southern California College of Optometry (then named the Los Angeles College of 
Optometry) which he related helped him to maintain his family and retain his upstairs 
optometric office. 
 
 From 1948 to 1961, Dr. Graham served at the rank of Associate Professor in 
charge of the contact lens and low vision courses and clinics at the College.  An article 
appearing in a College publication in 1954 stated that Dr. Graham had “made a place 
for himself in the heart of every senior student.” 
 
 Throughout this time he continued his deep interest in science and optics, 
retaining his memberships in the American Institute of Physics Professors, the 
American Physical Society, the Optical Society of America, and the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science to which, in 1958, he was elected to a 
lifetime membership in “recognition of his standing as a scientist.” 
 
 Also during these years Dr. Graham was serving as an optometric consultant to 
Kevin Touhy, the inventor of plastic corneal lenses, and to other optical laboratories 
including Solex Laboratories and later in the 60’s with Bausch & Lomb during their 
development of the first soft contact lens.  
 
 Dr. Graham learned of a clear plastic material called CR-39 developed as a 
bonding agent for bomber fuel tanks and began to work to develop this material for 
ophthalmic lenses.  After years of experimentation, plastic lens production commenced 
and for six years his company was the exclusive world-wide source for hard resin 
lenses.  As a result of Dr. Graham’s early efforts, fifty years later more than 80 percent 
of the lenses dispensed in the United States today are made from lightweight plastic. 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 85 
 

 Not only was Dr. Graham working to develop his lightweight contact lens, he was 
widely acclaimed for his invention of a low vision spectacle that he developed over five 
years of research with Dr. William Feinbloom.  This lens was labeled a “miracle lens” for 
certain partially sighted patients who had been previously labeled and treated as blind 
but could now carry out their daily routines without assistance.  Dr. Robert Graham is 
credited with the development of plastic spectacle lenses, the introduction of a 
reflection-reducing coating for ophthalmic lenses, the development of colorless 
ultraviolet absorbing lenses, the invention of the variable focus lens and the invention of 
the hybrid corneal lens.  
 
 Dr. Graham has been a Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry for over 
fifty years and served as chairman of its Contact Lens Section from 1957 to 1963.  He 
was elected as one of 25 professionals to be a full member of the International Society 
of Contact Lens Specialists. 
  
 He has been the recipient of numerous honors and other awards, including the 
most prestigious Friederich William Herschel Gold Medal in 1958 in Germany.  In 1966 
the National Eye Research Foundation presented him with the special Man of 
Distinction Award as “The Man Who Made it Safe to Wear Glasses.” 
 
 In 1963 Dr. Graham, along with renowned American geneticist and Nobel prize 
winner Hermann Muller, founded the Repository for Germinal Choice which collects 
germinal material from outstandingly intelligent and healthy men.  In 1970 he authored 
the book The Future of Man.  Following his retirement from Armorlite, he became active 
in the affairs of the Repository and announced in 1980 that the Repository would offer 
germinal choice to young married couples who want children but in whom the husband 
is infertile.  Since that time the Repository has become referred to as the Nobel sperm 
bank and has received wide attention throughout the world.  
 
 In 1970 The Wisdom Society for the Advancement of Knowledge, Learning and 
Research in Education named him an Eminent Recipient of the Wisdom Award of 
Honor, joining the ranks of such illustrious persons as Winston Churchill, Aaron 
Copland, Dr. Michael DeBakey, W. Somerset Maugham, Dr. Karl Menninger, Carl 
Sandburg, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, and others of such accomplishment.  That’s quite a 
distinguished list of colleagues, Bob.  In 1974 Dr. Graham retired from his contact lens 
practice, but continued as head of Armorlite until 1978 when the company was acquired 
by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company.   
 
 In 1984 he was elected a Distinguished Practitioner and Member of the National 
Academies of Practice.  Dr. Graham’s biography appears in a number of various 
volumes of Who’s Who.  He holds several patents and has authored numerous articles, 
two books and one chapter of another book. 
 
 In 1987 the American Academy of Optometry awarded Dr. Graham the William 
Feinbloom Award for his distinguished and significant contributions to clinical science 
and his direct clinical advancement of visual and optometric service.  The Southern 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 86 
 

California College of Optometry conferred a Doctor of Ocular Science Honorary Degree 
upon Bob in 1988.  The National Eye Research Foundation presented him with the 
Leonardo Da Vinci Award in 1989 and The Ohio State University College of Optometry 
declared Dr. Graham a Distinguished Alumnus in 1987 and later awarded him the Glenn 
A. Fry Medal in Physiological Optics in 1992. 
 
 Last year Dr. Graham observed his 90th birthday with a gala celebration attended 
by family members and many of his friends.  You would think that by now he would be 
sitting back and reveling in the memories and satisfaction of his many 
accomplishments.  But Bob had a very busy year.  He called a meeting of many 
outstanding eugenists and they decided to establish the Society for the Advancement of 
Genetics Education.  Then Ohio State University College of Optometry established an 
Ophthalmic Research Laboratory in his name.  To wrap up the year, the Optical 
Laboratories Association presented him with their Directors’ Choice Award for 
outstanding contributions to the eyecare professions and spectacle wearers 
everywhere.  Bob, I hope that if I live that long, my 90th year is as exciting as that! 
 
 Dr. Graham is truly a modern day Renaissance man who has made distinguished 
and significant contributions to clinical excellence, the optometric profession, genetic 
research and the public’s quality of life.  Although I have related to you here today some 
of Dr. Graham’s many accomplishments and the honors he has had bestowed upon 
him, my words are inadequate to properly describe all that this man has contributed to 
mankind.  Bob, I stand in awe and great admiration of your intelligence, your work, your 
drive and your dedication.  It is an honor for me to be here today with your family and 
many friends and colleagues to participate in saluting you for your lifetime’s work and 
accomplishments.  I hope I’m around to attend your 100th birthday celebration!  
 
 
Excerpt from: Graham RK. R.K.G.: How an Ordinary Man Despite a 
Very Poor Start, Still Won in Full Measure the Good Things in Life. 
Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1996: 40-42, 48, 51, 52. 
 
 From time to time I find the news media referring to me as the optometrist who 
developed hard resin spectacle lenses.  Accordingly it might be appropriate for me to 
outline the development of these lenses. 
 
 This is inevitably semi-biographical.  When I was graduated from OSU in Applied 
Optics, I had accepted a position with the Bausch & Lomb Optical Company which gave 
me some background in optical manufacturing.  I subsequently was engaged in further 
optical manufacturing with the Univis Lens Company. 
 
 The Univis Lens Company had acquired the Unbreakable Lens Company of 
American (TULCA), which had attempted to make ophthalmic lenses of polymethyl-
methacrylate (PMMA) under the Lloyd patent.  Univis moved the TULCA project from 
California to Dayton and established a laboratory there to develop the techniques to the 
point where production would be commercially feasible. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 87 
 

 
 I was interested in the potentialities of the then new optical medium PMMA and 
so visited the Univis project, reporting in some detail to Bausch & Lomb.  (At that time 
glass ophthalmic lenses were Bausch & Lomb’s most profitable product from the 
standpoint of dollars earned.  It is worth noting that, in part because initially they ignored 
the new medium, they never caught up in the hard resin lens field and, lacking a 
complete line of lenses, some 40 years later practically ceased to be a supplier of 
ophthalmic spectacle lenses.) 
 
 A few months after my visit to Univis their president, Jack Silverman, offered me 
a position as their Western Division Manager.  This I accepted, being largely persuaded 
by my interest in the potentialities of their plastic lens project. 
 
 Some six years later Univis was confronted by a patent infringement suit filed by 
Combined Optical Industries, Ltd., of Slough, England, who manufactured Igard lenses 
of PMMA.  The C.O.I.L. patents antedated the Lloyd patent so Univis decided to 
abandon their plastic lens project.  They had employed injection molding, which 
necessitated the use of high chrome content steel molds so as to withstand extremes of 
heat and pressure.  The mold cost was high and the mold life short.  Furthermore, 
injection invites striae.  Univis never reached a point where their costs and reject rate 
were low enough so that they could enter the market with their product. 
 
 I was by then Sales Manager of Univis.  When the company closed their plastic 
lens project I resigned and took with me to Pasadena, California all but one of Univis’ 
plastic lens research technicians.  (They were, of course, out of a job in Dayton.  Smitty 
went to Seattle.)  We did not know how to manufacture a plastic lens successfully but 
we knew a great many things not to do.  We were, for example, saved the great 
expense of trying metal molds and injection molding.  Also we felt that there were 
several things yet to be tried. 
 
 We, the Plastic Optics Company (later renamed Armorlite), developed and 
patented a minimum-flow process in which we took discs of clear PMMA, turned them 
on a lathe into the lens form we wanted, and then polished them by pressing the blank 
between polished glass molds under moderate temperatures.  As a consequence, we 
had superb, strain-free lenses with no problem of plastic memory or of striae.  Their 
major limitation was susceptibility to abrasion.  Nevertheless, since we were the only 
source of non-glass lenses in the nation, we developed a modest enterprise. 
 
 During World War II, the Columbia-Southern Chemical Company developed a 
new resin (Columbia Resin #39).  Armorlite was producing lenses of methacrylate.  We 
knew, from scientific reports, of the superior qualities of CR-39 but could not buy it 
because it was limited to military uses.  However, I had sought access to it and they 
gave me small (five gallon) quantities for experimental purposes.  By the time it was 
available commercially, we had worked out most of the techniques which enabled us to 
make excellent marketable lenses of CR-39.  By marketable, I mean that the quality 
was good and the unit cost did not make the lenses prohibitively expensive. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 88 
 

 
 With the end of the war, Columbia-Southern had large production facilities and 
tankcar quantities of CR-39, but suddenly had no use for them.  Armorlite had a use for 
this redundant stuff.  As the months and years went on, we became a pretty good 
consumer of material of which Columbia-Southern once had excessive quantities. 
 
 The chief problem in the manufacture of these lenses was the 14% shrinkage of 
the liquid monomer as it solidified between dies.  This we accommodated by casting 
blanks with the appropriate front curvature and with a back curvature practically 
paralleling the front.  This permitted uniform, distortion-free shrinkage during cure.  We 
then ground and cold-polished on the back surface the curvature required to produce 
the desired power in the finished lens.  From then on the use of plastic spectacle lenses 
accelerated, since the new product was some thirty times more resistant to abrasion 
than its PMMA predecessor. 
 
 For about the first six years we had a worldwide monopoly as the sole producers 
of CR-39 lenses.  Then imitators began to enter the field, thus confirming the 
significance of our development.  The manufacturers of glass lenses pointed out that 
our lenses were scratchable. 
 
 The one major way in which allyl resin lenses were not equal to or superior to 
those of glass was in their abrasion resistance.  Even so, the use of resin lenses grew 
until it equaled, and in some countries exceeded, the use of glass.  We constantly 
sought ways of improving the abrasion resistance and, through the years, tested and 
retested many approaches to improving the product. 
 
 Consistently, the surface treatment developed by the Minnesota Mining and 
Manufacturing Company (3M) proved superior to all others and I tried to license their 
process for use by Armorlite.  Failing in that I tried to negotiate a license to manufacture 
the coating material itself.  After years of negotiations, joint research and testing, 3M 
decided to acquire Armorlite.  This was accomplished in 1978.  On July 26, 1978, a 
letter was sent to each Armorlite shareholder informing them of the proposed merger 
with the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), and calling for a meeting 
of the Armorlite shareholders at 10:00 A.M. on August 23, 1978 at the Armorlite 
Company offices in San Marcos for the purpose of approving the agreement under 
which they would receive $414.18 per share.  It pointed out that the earliest Armorlite 
investors had paid only $1.00 per share, and that counting dividends and stock splits 
during thirty years under the terms of the agreement they would have received a total of 
$4,164.88 per share, part of which would, of course, be in 3M stock, but which could be 
converted to cash if that were preferred. 
 
 This merger enabled 3M to market Armorlite lenses with improved abrasion 
resistance.  With that development my contributions to the field of ophthalmic lenses 
ended.   
 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 89 
 

Book Review: A Short Bright Flash: Augustin Fresnel 
and the Birth of the Modern Lighthouse 
 
A Short Bright Flash: Augustin Fresnel and the Birth of the Modern Lighthouse. 
Theresa Levitt. New York: W.W. Norton, 2013. 281 pages. ISBN: 978-0-393-06879-
5. Hardcover, $25.95. 
 
David A. Goss, O.D., Ph.D. 
School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, dgoss@indiana.edu 
 
 
 Having used Fresnel lenses and Fresnel prisms on occasion, the subtitle of this 
book caught my attention as I had little knowledge of Fresnel’s life or contributions.  
Augustin Fresnel was born in 1788 in the Normandy region of France.  Entering École 
polytechnique in Paris at 16 years of age, his skill at graphic arts and engineering 
drawing stood out, “his dexterity and practical bent already marking him as an 
engineer.” (p.26)  He proceeded to École nationale des ponts et chausses, a school of 
civil engineering, from which he graduated in 1809. 
 
 Fresnel’s first job as an engineer was building roads.  In 1819, Fresnel won the 
Grand Prize from the Académie des sciences for research on diffraction that he 
completed while on leave from his engineering job.  His measurements of diffraction 
patterns corresponded closely to the predictions he made based on a wave theory of 
light. 
 
 Later in 1819, Fresnel was assigned to assist physicist Francois Arago in studies 
of the light output of lighthouses which at that time used parabolic mirrors behind oil 
lamps.  These lights were not bright enough and shipwrecks were a major problem.  To 
increase the light output, Fresnel designed a system of concentric lenses.  Fresnel’s 
system in 1820 had multiple polygonal lenses to make up each concentric ring.  By 
1821, the concentric rings were more circular as improved glassmaking allowed more 
arch in the individual pieces of glass in each ring.  Fresnel and Arago also designed an 
improved lamp. 
 
 Tests of Fresnel’s system in 1821 and 1822 showed it to be a much brighter light 
than those that were in lighthouses at the time.  In 1822 and 1823, Fresnel also 
published a series of papers relating to the wave theory of light.  In 1823, he was 
elected to the Académie des sciences, and in 1824, he was decorated with the Ordre 
national de la Légion d’honneur. 
 
 The first of Fresnel’s lighthouse lighting systems was in use by 1823.  Fresnel 
was promoted to secretary of the Lighthouse Commission.  As he continued to work on 
improvements in the design and construction of his lighting system, he started to plan 
where lighthouses should be placed along the coast so that one light would always be 
visible, and he oversaw their installation. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 90 
 

 
 Long in ill health, Fresnel died of tuberculosis at 39 years of age in 1827.  Shortly 
before his death, he received the Rumford Medal from the British Royal Society for his 
contributions to science.  Fresnel’s brother, Léonor, also an engineer, had been 
assisting Fresnel and took over as secretary of the Lighthouse Commission. 
 
 The largest of the Fresnel lighthouse light systems incorporated concentric 
lenses along with prisms and mirrors to redirect light coming out of the lamp in many 
directions into parallel paths.  At the Exposition Universelle of 1855, a bust of Fresnel 
was displayed and a Fresnel lighthouse lighting system was a prominent exhibit.  By 
that time, sixteen different countries had installed the Fresnel systems. 
 
 The United States was slow in adopting the Fresnel lighthouse lighting systems.  
The emphasis of roughly the second half of the book was on struggles in the United 
States in the 1830s through the 1850s to improve the lighthouse system, the 
dismantling of the lights in the southern states during the Civil War to hamper the Union 
blockade effort, and rivalries among French and English companies making lighthouse 
lights in the late nineteenth century. 
 
 The last few pages of the book address the legacy of Augustin Fresnel.  The 
items listed by the author as being byproducts of the principles of Fresnel’s lighthouse 
light system have been stage lights, stop lights, car headlights, overhead projectors, 
solar generators, and “handheld sheet magnifying glasses.” (p. 232)  The author did not 
specifically mention the application of Fresnel lenses and prisms to spectacle lenses. 
 
 The author closed the book with these thoughts: “The most brilliant physicist of 
his age, he abandoned his research to devote himself to the cause of illuminating the 
coast.  Although he was small, delicate, and hampered by sickness, the strengths he 
possessed were his mind and spirit, and these were enough to take on one of the 
civilization’s most indomitable opponents: the sea.  The brighter lights emanating from 
his lenses were one of the few human efforts to reduce the terrible risks facing every 
sea voyage.  It is only fitting, then, that as every lighthouse in France came to have a 
Fresnel lens in the nineteenth century, so too did they all have bust of Fresnel, his high, 
pale brow surveying the shoreline that he had made a little safer.” (p. 233) 
 
 In the preface, the author described herself as a historian of optics.  She is a 
history professor at the University of Mississippi.  She graduated from the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and holds a master’s degree in history from Iowa 
State University and a Ph.D. from Harvard University.  I found the book to be interesting 
reading, and I was pleased to learn something about the life of Augustin Fresnel.  The 
book includes 29 pages of bibliographical notes, an index, and a number of black and 
white illustrations. 
 
 
 
 
 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 91 
 

Instructions to Authors 
 

Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History is the official publication of the Optometric Historical Society (OHS), 
and, as such, supports and complements the purposes and functions of OHS.  The journal publishes historical 
research, articles, reports, book reviews, letters to the editor, and article reviews.  The topics of material published in 
the journal include: history of optometry; history of eye and vision care; history of spectacles, contact lenses, and 
other corrective devices; history of vision therapy, low vision care, and other vision care modalities; history of vision 
science; history of optometric education; biographical sketches of persons who have worked in or influenced 
optometry and/or vision science; recollections or oral histories of optometrists and persons who have worked in 
optometry and optometry-related fields; and related topics. 

 
Material submitted for publication should be sent to the editor: David A. Goss, School of Optometry, Indiana 

University, Bloomington, IN 47405; dgoss@indiana.edu.  Material may be submitted by postal service or by email, 
although the preferred mode of reception of submissions is a Word document in an email attachment.   
 

Authors who wish to use direct quotations of substantial length, tables, figures, or illustrations from 
copyrighted material must obtain written permission from the publisher or copyright owner.  Short quotations may be 
acknowledged by quotation marks and a reference citation. 
 
 Submissions should include a title, the names, degrees, postal addresses, and email addresses of the 
authors.  Abstracts are not recommended for short articles.  Abstracts and key words are recommended but not 
necessary for longer articles. 
 
 Tables and figures should be numbered sequentially in the order that the mention of them appears in the 
text, e.g., Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, Figure 2.  Each table and figure should have mention or discussion of it in the 
text of the article.  Each table and figure should be accompanied by an explanatory figure legend or table legend.  
Any article containing tables should be submitted as a Word document attachment to an email message with the 
tables produced through the table creating function of Word (as opposed to an Excel or comparable spreadsheet). 
 
 Extensive use of uncommon abbreviations, symbols, and acronyms is discouraged.  Common abbreviations, 
such as D for diopters or cm for centimeters, may be used.  Common symbols, such as ∆ for prism diopters, may be 
used when the context for their use is clear.  The first use of acronyms should be accompanied by the name or 
phrase spelled out followed by the acronym in parentheses, as for example: The Optometric Historical Society (OHS) 
has produced a quarterly publication since 1970.    
 
 Acknowledgments should be placed between the text of the article and the reference section.  Sources of 
support, such as grant funding or other significant assistance, should be acknowledged.  The assistance of persons 
who contributed to the work may also be acknowledged. 
 
 References should be placed after the acknowledgments, and for most papers will be the last section of the 
paper.  References should be numbered in order of their citation in the body of the article.  Citations should be 
identified in the text by superscript numbers.  Authors are responsible for ensuring that reference listings are correct.  
Reference format should be as follows: 
 
Journal articles: 
Calvo M, Enoch JM. Early use of corrective lenses in Spanish colonies of the Americas including parts of the future 
United States: reference to Viceroy Luis de Velasco (the son). Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:681-689. 
 
Section in a single author book:  
Hofstetter HW. Optometry: Professional, Economic, and Legal Aspects. St. Louis: Mosby, 1948:17-35. 
 
Chapter in a multi-author volume:  
Penisten DK. Eyes and vision in North American Indiana cultures: An historical perspective on traditional medicine 
and mythology. In: Goss DA, Edmondson LL, eds. Eye and Vision Conditions in the American Indian. Yukon, OK; 
Pueblo Publishing, 1990:186-190.  
 
Citations to articles in Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History should be given as follows:  
Bennett I. The story behind Optometric Management magazine. Hindsight: J Optom Hist 2007;38:17-22. 
 
 If footnotes or notes on additional (minor) details are used, they should be marked in the text with 
superscript lower case letters starting with a and continuing in alphabetical order.  The notes themselves should be 
the last section of the paper.  The heading for the section should be Notes. 



Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History….October, 2013, volume 44, number 4, page 92 
 

Optometric Historical Society  
Membership Application  

 
Membership in the Optometric Historical Society (OHS) is open to anyone interested in the 
history of optometry, spectacles, vision science, or related topics. Membership includes a 
subscription to Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History.  
 
 
To join OHS, send your address and a check for dues payment to:  
 
Optometric Historical Society  
Attn: Kirsten Hébert 
American Optometric Association 
243 North Lindbergh Boulevard  
St. Louis, MO 63141  
 
Check one:  
_____ regular membership, $25 per year  
 
_____ patron membership, $50 per year  
 
_____ lifetime membership, $250  
 
Checks should be made payable to the Optometric Historical Society.  
 
Name ________________________________________________________________  
 
Address ______________________________________________________________  
 
_____________________________________________________________________  
 
 
A sample copy of Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History can be obtained by writing to the 
journal editor: David A. Goss, Hindsight Editor, School of Optometry, Indiana University, 
Bloomington, IN 47405; dgoss@indiana.edu or can be viewed at  
www.opt.indiana.edu/ohs/hindsightJan07.pdf.  
 
Institutional or library subscriptions to Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History can be obtained by 
following the above instructions for registering OHS membership and completing the above OHS 
membership application form.  
 
Members of the Board of Directors of Optometry's Cares™ – The AOA Foundation and the Optometric 
Historical Society (OHS) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that places OHS under the 
auspices of The AOA Foundation. For more information about The AOA Foundation and the Optometric 
Historical Society, please visit www.optometryscharity.org and www.opt.indiana.edu/ohs/optohiso.html. 
 
 


	OHSfrontcover44-4(1)
	Hindsight44-4