[nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world, or should the world adapt to us?

[T. Joseph Carter]

Marc,

You said that the NFB's positions on these issues is more nuanced 
than you indicate, and you are right.  One of the problems I have 
seen is that while some very active members who have closely followed 
the issues can adequately articulate those positions, a lot of people 
don't follow them that closely or buy in to the press releases of our 
opponents which intentionally seek to remove those crucial details.

Let us take the squawker signals as an excellent example.  When they 
first came on the scene, it really was black and white with the NFB, 
because the signals were and are dangerous.  It's not even that the 
lights as they exist are badly designed from a universal perspective, 
but that the solution was worse than the problem.  If you have to 
choose between hearing cars and hearing that the light has changed, 
you're less likely to go splat if you know what the cars are doing.  
That isn't a matter of training, either.  That's a matter of common 
sense and self-preservation.  Now, learning to hear what those cars 
are doing and accurately interpret the results—ah, now that takes 
some training.

The nuance came into play when newer signals with speakers at each 
pole that make only as much noise as they need to came around.  As an 
organization, we still believe it is impractical to spend the 
billions of dollars to immediately outfit every single signal with 
these things.  We continue to be offended that sighted people seem to 
think that vocational rehabilitation centers need them, but far more 
difficult intersections do not.

There is a means of installing the things that does not have a 
significant financial burden associated:  Install them only when the 
intersection is being serviced.  When you do that, the cost is only 
that of the signals themselves and a small amount of labor.  If the 
signal is being replaced as part of the service, the cost is almost 
nothing to make the choice of a more universal signal.

I don't see the NFB as "progressive", and I don't really like that 
word anyway, since logically what is "progressive" would depend on 
your definition of "progress".  Hopefully without a political debate, 
I will opine that the group using that term since before I was born 
is collectively the most custodial bunch of people who ever tried to 
commit charity upon us to ensure that we're taken care of like 
everybody else.  No sir, I suspect the NFB is the antithesis of that 
way of thinking even if we have to sometimes accept what they offer 
and use it as best we can for our own purposes.

Instead, I would say that the NFB is pragmatic.  If you remove the 
danger factor of universally designed pedestrian signals, you are 
left with the financial impact.  That is where the NFB appears to shy 
away from them.  There may be a debate about whether the sighted 
world would treat us differently if we fought for these things, but 
the real objection comes down to money: If they have to spend tons of 
money on us, we fear resentment and retaliation.

I personally found each one of the NFB's arguments against altering 
the US currency to be valid, and yet I still managed to find a 
logical basis for supporting the ACB's goal, despite agreement that 
their method posed risk.  That logic, combined with a broader view of   
people who could benefit from the changes in question, some basic 
moral teaching of my faith led me to one conclusion:  I continued to 
support it despite the cost involved—though I put forward some plans 
that would reduce the overall cost in exchange for a longer 
transition to a universal currency.

The NFB didn't agree with me on that one, and I was not able to 
convince a majority that I was right.  Yet when the decision was made 
that changes were made, the NFB did demonstrate interest in making 
sure the changes made were useful ones.

I think when it comes right down to it, most things that are worth 
changing are worth changing for the sake of everyone.  If they aren't 
going to benefit everyone, we ask two questions: Does the need really 
exist?  And if so, how best can that need be filled, taking all 
factors into consideration?

We don't always operate this way—or we may occasionally lose some 
perspective in the heat of the moment.  Generally though, it is the 
way the NFB operates.  It serves us well, too.

Joseph


On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:40:29PM -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote:
>I was actually planning to ask a similar question myself on this list.  But,
>for me, the question is as follows: to what extent should blind people fight
>for changes to the way environments, products, and services are designed in
>order to facilitate easier access?
>
>I believe strongly in a lot of the tenants of NFB philosophy.  I think the
>organization generally has a progressive attitude towards blindness, but
>where we part company is on the issue of design.
>
>If I'm correct, the NFB generally opposes alterations to the built
>environment unless absolutely necessary.  So even the NFB says it is
>appropriate to fight so that silent cars make noise, and this is because no
>amount of training is going to completely eliminate the danger of quiet
>cars.  In general, though, the NFB promotes better training over what it
>perceives as unnecessary changes to the environment.  Audible signals is one
>example, and I think accessible currency is yet another.  Let me say that I
>know the reasons for the stances on audible signals and accessible currency
>are more nuanced, but, as a generalization, it seems to me that the NFB
>favours training over alterations that aren't necessary.  Correct me if I'm
>wrong on this.
>
>So the question is then, why oppose alterations to the environment.  Who
>does it hurt when we fight to have environments, products, and services
>designed with everyone in mind? And the answer that I've typically seen is
>that it hurts blind people.  If  I understand the position, the NFB argues
>that misconceptions and myths about the abilities of blind people are the
>main barriers we face, and I won't argue with that, but then the argument
>goes on to suggest that making changes to the environment only perpetuates
>these misconceptions and myths.  Altering the environment makes the average
>sighted Joe six pack think that we all need special treatment, we're
>incapable of doing things like everyone else, etc etc etc.  So because these
>adaptations/alterations actually do damage to us, it is necessary to oppose
>them.  This is my understanding of the opposition.  Again, correct me if I'm
>wrong.
>
>Now, let's suppose that it's true that such alterations perpetuate
>misconceptions and prejudice, which I think is actually debatable itself,
>but even if true, don't we see the flaw in the sighted person's thinking?
>The reason we should push for audible signals is not because we couldn't
>possibly cross the street without them, it's not because we're inept and
>can't do things like everyone else, it's because the people who originally
>designed the thing called a controlled intersection screwed up.  They
>designed it on the assumption that sight would be the main sense used to
>determine when the light has changed.  Well that was a serious error in
>design.  Both the sense of hearing and the sense of touch can also be
>employed to detect when the light changes if only the designers had taken
>into consideration these alternative ways of gaining information when they
>originally designed it.  A very similar argument can be made about nearly
>every environment, product, and service.  They are almost always designed
>based on the assumption that only one kind of body will interact with this
>environment, use this product, and receive this service.  We know that that
>is a bad assumption.  People come with an innumerable set of differing
>abilities, and design should, as much as possible, try to take these
>differences into consideration.
>
>So even if sighted people do misinterpret changes to the environment, it
>strikes me as odd that we should put up with bad designs just because most
>people interpret things wrongly.  Instead, we should push for universal
>design of environments, products, and services, and we should do our best to
>educate those who would misunderstand these alterations.
>
>Let me say pre-emptively that I absolutely support the availability of
>really good rehabilitation training services.  We completely lack adequate
>rehab services up here in Canada, and I think the NFB has the right attitude
>when it comes to the blind teaching the blind.  Nothing I say should be
>interpreted as denying the need for excellent blindness skills.  But as I
>said, I very much disagree with the NFB stance on universal design, and if
>someone wants to show me where I've mischaracterized the position, or why
>the position ought to be supported, I would really appreciate that.
>
>Regards,
>
>Marc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
>Behalf Of alena roberts
>Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:44 AM
>To: nabs; National Association of Blind Students mailing list; NFB of
>Oregon mailing list
>Subject: [nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world,or should the
>world adapt to us?
>
>
>Should the world adapt to the blind, or should we adapt to the world?
>This is the question I posed in my blog today. I believe that it
>should be both. People with disabilities need to be given tools, but
>we also have the right to participate in society which may mean
>accomidating our needs. I would really like to hear other people's
>opinions about this topic. Please visit my blog and let your voice be
>heard. Thanks.
>
>http://www.blindgal.com
>
>--
>Alena Roberts
>Blog: http://www.blindgal.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>nabs-l:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualberta.
>ca
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com