So I think braille should be taught, but not imposed on a person. Braille would be very essential in studying subjects like math phonetics, with alot of special symbols. But for me, it is like a bottleneck in many other contexts. With eloquence I can use it at 87%, and blow through texts at a rate comparable to a sighted person. But with braille, I am nowhere near that speed, and using braille then is like using dialup internet in place of pure fiber imho.
I did have negative experiences with braille. In our school, the teacher and students were extremely jellous that I got myself a perkins brailler, and tried everything possible to take it away from me. In sixth grade, in my third blind school, someone complained to the counceling service, and they banned me from using it because of the noise, even though I was using the pad underneeth it. They forced me to use a slate, which made my grades suffer horribly, and caused me to not be able to keep up, as I am not as fast at a slate and didn't have similar experience to my classmates. I did however use it in highschool to take notes. On hind site, using a laptop and audio notes would've been faster.
On the braille literacy argument, many people seem to believe that the disadvantage of audio is that you don't know how to spell words. This is however only true in non-orthographic languages like in English. In orthographic languages like Turkish, which is spelled exactly how it is said, if you hear a word, you can spell it.
Finally, on the capitlization of braille, I don't think it should be. Prınt, which is a code isn't capatilized, so braille shouldn't iether. And Jade, you state that it would make sense to capitalize based on it being named after it's founder. However, actually, things named after their founder generally aren't capitalized. For example, diseases, which usually bare the names of their foundders, aren't capitalized.