[nabs-l] waver

[H. Field]

Mark, some interesting points.
However, I'm not convinced that the, I have to do extra work in this 
course and that's discrimination, argument is appropriate in this 
situation.

I don't believe that we are actually discussing a situation in which 
extra work is required. It is not extra work that is required to 
successfully complete many of the courses that are very visual. In 
most cases, the blind person needs to get sighted assistance, such as 
a reader or describer or a diagramer, but this use of assistance is 
not requiring the blind person to do extra work. The same amount of 
work is covered, it is just completed in a different way. The blind 
person may use a bit more time while listening to descriptions and so 
on. However, I don't think there are many sighted students who don't 
have to spend extra time on one course or other during their time at 
college. Very few students are great at everything and usually, most 
of us struggle in one area or other. many average students use extra 
time on particular subjects because they are difficult for them.

By way of a real life example. A sighted friend of mine was required 
to take a language course as part of his undergraduate degree. He 
detests learning a foreign language and he is horrible at it. He spent 
hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars on a tutor and he barely 
scraped over the pass mark. I don't believe that it was discrimination 
to make him take a language course. The business faculty considered 
that graduates should have a basic knowledge of at least one of the 
languages spoken by the country's largest trading partners. The 
designers of that degree program decided on what program components 
would turn out a well-rounded, competent business student. This same 
friend, who struggled with the language course, actually tutored three 
fellow students who were floundering with one of the accounting 
courses that they were required to take one semester. These three 
students spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars to acquire 
knowledge and skills to pass their accounting courses. So, all of 
these students were required to spend extra time and effort on the 
particular required courses which they found challenging if they 
wanted to graduate with the business degree from that university.

So, even though blind people are often required to spend extra time, 
and sometimes money, though the disability office usually pays for 
assistance, in the grand scheme of college experience, it doesn't 
appear to me that the blind end up doing more than most students. 
Given the incredibly large number of options available to creative, 
blind problem-solvers in finding ways to access information and learn 
skills, it is hard to imagine many courses where a waiver is the best 
answer. Perhaps if a course required portrait and landscape painting, 
a case could be made that the blind person couldn't do this with 
assistance. But, there are no doubt possible substitutions that the 
art professor would accept such as a a relief carving in clay or 
drawing using raised line drawing materials. I cannot imagine a reason 
why a blind person should receive a waiver from a performing arts 
program as there are blind people who perform in just about every 
branch of the performing arts.

In my experience, most blind people request waivers because they don't 
know how they can make accommodations for a particular course. Yet, 
when they actually get into the situation they come up with ideas and 
methods and end up passing the course without undue difficulty or 
hardship. Sadly, and this is an unpleasant truth, many blind students 
also request waivers because they are afraid of going out of their 
comfort zone. Imagine how many students would request waivers if they 
could use discomfort as a reason. But, blind students are often 
working with sighted people who have no idea what abilities and skills 
blind people have, so they allow the blind student to substitute the 
word "blind" for the words uncomfortable and unwilling, and they grant 
them a waiver.

the argument that no waivers are given in the working world is a 
compelling one for refusing waivers and taking the opportunity to 
develop problem-solving skills and positive attitudes towards 
challenging situations. The years spent at college are a 
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for blind students to learn the skills 
and attitudes that they will need to be successful employees. Whether 
or not an ethical argument for discrimination can be made in this 
context, and I'm not convinced that it can, reality makes it's own 
immutable point. If you don't learn to be a creative problem-solver 
and a proactive and flexible blind person, willing and able to adapt 
to the challenges of living in a sighted world, then you will not 
succeed in obtaining and maintaining employment in your career of 
choice.

YES! There is absolutely a place for collective action to work to 
improve the overall accessibility of the sighted world for the blind. 
But, total accessibility to the sighted world requires sight. In the 
meantime blind people have ethical decisions to make daily about what 
is a reasonable accommodation and what is an unnecessary waiver.

On the question of the NFB asking for waivers, I submit the following. 
I don't believe that the NFB has asked for blind people to be allowed 
to work while not losing their welfare payments. I am by no means an 
expert on this topic so please correct me those who know about such 
things. However, as I understand it, There are two kinds of disability 
payments that blind people may receive. SSi, and SSDI.
In the case of the first, if a blind recipient starts to work, they 
will lose government payment dollars at the same rate as sighted 
recipients though, given the unique equipment needs of blind workers 
in many situations, There is a provision where blind workers may 
retain benefits if they are putting their job earnings toward certain 
essential, job-related equipment, transportation etc.

In the case of SSDI, blind recipients also start to lose benefits at 
the same rate as sighted recipients. The NFB has been trying to have 
the earnings limit raised so that the disincentive not to work and 
loose benefits is not so large. They are only seeking to have the 
earnings limit raised to where it matches that given to senior 
citizens receiving government benefits. Thus, the NFB is seeking an 
already existing benefit be extended to blind workers and is not 
requesting a waiver on the earnings limit.

Regards,

Heather


'm not sure,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Workman" <mworkman.lists at gmail.com>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] waver


I wasn't going to say anything, but Sean has motivated me.

SW,
Being blind, this class would present me with additional challenges 
and
extra work not required of other students.
Therefore, I shouldn't have to take it.

Short argument, I know. Seems there must be a missing premise there
somewhere, no? Maybe something like:

People shouldn't have to do things that aren't fair.

MW,
Not sure you've presented the argument as strongly as you could have. 
How
about:

Being blind, this class would present me with additional challenges 
and
extra work not required of other students.
Being require to complete extra work not required of other students, 
solely
because I'm blind, is a form of discrimination.
Students should not have to take classes that discriminate.
Therefore, I shouldn't have to take this particular class.

Now, you'll probably disagree, but don't disagree with the above 
version.
Instead, show me why the following one is wrong, or why the two cases 
are
not the same.

Being a woman, this class would present me with additional challenges 
and
extra work not required of other students.
Being require to complete extra work not required of other students, 
solely
because I'm a woman, is a form of discrimination.
Students should not have to take classes that discriminate.
Therefore, I shouldn't have to take this particular class.

Besides, of course we shouldn't have to do things that are unfair. 
I'm not
sure exactly what you mean by fair/unfair, but I have in mind 
something like
just/unjust.  Saying we should have to do things that are unfair is 
like
saying we should have to do things that are unjust.  We certainly do 
have to
do things that are unfair/unjust, particularly because we live in an 
unjust
world, but this doesn't mean we should have to do these things.

The point I would make is that a college that requires all students to 
take
very visually oriented classes as part of completion of a degree has 
been
badly designed.  It has been designed on the assumption that only 
sighted
students will be attending the university.  And that is unfair, it's 
unjust,
and it should be challenged.  Do you think it is common to require a 
music
appreciation class at Gallaudet University? Imagine there were a 
university
for the blind, would it make sense to require these highly visual 
courses?
My guess is you will say yes because a lot can be learned from taking
courses like this, math, biology, art history, etc.  I agree, but I'm 
also
sure that if Gallaudet required a music appreciation course, and if 
this
blind university required an art history course, the courses would be
designed in such a way that the deaf and blind students wouldn't be 
forced
to work harder simply to make up for the ignorance of the people who
designed the course/curriculum.

SW,
If we say we want to be treated like anybody else, we have to mean it. 
The
"when it suits me" Caveat undermines the whole stance.

MW,
If we say discrimination is wrong, we have to fight against it, in all 
its
forms, including those cases where blind students are forced to do 
extra
work simply because they are blind.

SW,
Wouldn't it be easier, and maybe more fair, to just have you skip the
optional trip?"

MW,
Don't see how this would be more fair.  Perhaps if there were an 
argument
showing that this really would be more fair, then you'd have 
something, but
without this, I think the analogy fails.

SW,
Fortunately, we in the NFB are working together to make things less
difficult, and through our collective work we have built, and continue 
to
build, a brighter future for all blind people. I will, however, assure 
you
that none of our progress was ever attained by requesting a waiver.

MW,
It sort of depends on what you mean by a waver.  The NFB has asked for
things to be altered for the benefit of the blind.  I read Walking 
Alone and
Marching Together not that long ago, and if I recall, one of the early 
goals
of the organization was to make it so that blind people could earn 
money in
the market place without having welfare benefits cut back.  Is this 
not a
kind of a waver? Everyone else gets their benefits cut when they earn 
a
certain income, but this shouldn't happen for blind people? This is 
one
example that readily comes to mind.  I think pretty much any time a 
change
has been requested that is designed to make things easier for blind 
people
and will lead to differential treatment, this can be construed as a 
kind of
a waver.

I think it is too commonly thought that equality requires equal 
treatment,
or that equal treatment requires treating people the same.  This is a
simplistic understanding of equality.  If someone has good reasons for
wanting to be treated differently, and I include the fact that 
treating her
the same would result in discrimination among good reasons, then there 
is
nothing wrong with treating her differently.  If someone sees that
differential treatment and makes mistaken assumptions about the 
abilities of
blind people, and then discriminates against me in the future, I will 
hold
him responsible for making those false assumptions, not her for 
insisting on
her right to be free from discrimination.

I think if more energy were spent fighting the discriminatory design 
of
products, services, and institutions, and less time spent coming up 
with
clever ways of getting along within these badly designed systems, all 
blind
people would be a lot better off, not just the clever ones.

Best,

Marc


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean Whalen" <smwhalenpsp at gmail.com>
To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] waver


> Good afternoon,
>
> I don't necessarily think that it is the purpose of NABS or the NFB 
> to
> prescribe rigid stances on issues like class waivers, paratransit 
> use,
> reduced price tickets for transport, when to accept or not accept
> assistance, etc. In fact, I think that is not our purpose at all. 
> People,
> both inside and outside of the organization, seem to get the 
> impression
> that
> we are some monolith that holds clear positions on such issues. If 
> you
> want
> to know what the NFB thinks, go look at our resolutions and the 
> programs
> we
> implement. Those are the policies of the organization. And, while we 
> all
> work to further them, the policy objectives of the organization may 
> or may
> not be in line with the thinking of any particular member of the 
> group. I,
> for instance, certainly have my points of disagreement with the 
> NFB's
> policies in certain areas, and just because I have chosen to be a 
> member
> does not mean that I have forfeited the right to my own opinions. 
> Like
> anything, you take the good with the bad. If I tell you I'm a 
> Democrat,
> would you automatically assume that I hold a specific set of views? 
> Would
> your knowing that I am a democrat entail your knowing how I feel 
> about
> every
> issue, abortion, economy, education, etc.? Of course it wouldn't. 
> So, why
> does your knowing that I am an NFB member entail your knowing how I 
> feel
> about all issues related to blindness? Obviously, it doesn't.
>
> This said, when it comes to the question of whether one should take 
> a
> waiver
> for a class, there isn't even an official NFB stance. Nor should 
> there be.
> Certainly you are likely to find a prevailing opinion among our
> membership,
> but that doesn't make it "what the NFB thinks."
>
> My personal opinion on the matter is that it is lazy, 
> counterproductive,
> and
> absolutely the wrong thing to do. I'm sure somebody can show me a 
> case
> where
> a waiver was the right decision, but there are counterexamples to
> everything.
>
> Ok, so you don't want to take the visual arts class that is required 
> for a
> BA. It would present certain challenges, and surely is not essential 
> for
> your history major. It would be way easier to just pick up 3 other 
> credits
> somewhere else. The argument goes:
>
> Being blind, this class would present me with additional challenges 
> and
> extra work not required of other students.
> Therefore, I shouldn't have to take it.
>
> Short argument, I know. Seems there must be a missing premise there
> somewhere, no? Maybe something like:
>
> People shouldn't have to do things that aren't fair.
>
> That's about what you'd have to believe to make the "I'm blind, 
> please
> don't
> make me." Argument hold water. Jeez, is it fair that math takes me 
> so much
> longer than my classmates. I'm an English major, and who really 
> needs math
> anyway? Wouldn't it be more fair if I could pick up some additional
> English
> credits to replace that pesky college algebra? More fair, maybe. 
> Better,
> no
> chance in hell.
>
> Universities have these requirements for a reason. You may agree or
> disagree
> with the reason, but there is an objective, namely graduating 
> reasonably
> well-rounded students, behind them. And please do not come with the 
> line
> about how blind students simply won't take anything away from 
> certain
> classes. I, a Political Science and Philosophy major by the way, 
> took
> calculus, statistics, and economics courses which were heavily 
> visual in
> many respects. Through work with classmates, instructors and readers 
> I was
> able to master the concepts at play in each without ever having any 
> of the
> information represented to me visually. So, can I draw or examine 
> economic
> or mathematical graphs? Nope, but I can sure understand what 
> economists
> are
> talking about when they refer to them, and I can absolutely ask the 
> right
> questions of a lay person to glean the information I need from the 
> graph.
> So
> often people get caught up in and intimidated by graphs, when all 
> they are
> are tools to represent data and illustrate concepts. Mastery of the
> underlying concept is what is important.
>
> So what about a visual arts class. Fortunately, I never was required 
> to
> take
> one. I say fortunately, because I have no inclination to take such a
> class,
> and don't think I would enjoy it, though one can never know. But 
> what if I
> had been required to take a class on art history or something of the 
> sort.
> What if I had to have a reader come in and describe paintings to me? 
> Would
> that be a pain in the ass? Yes, probably. In an entire semester of
> learning
> about different styles of painting would I ever have the pleasure of
> enjoying the aesthetic beauty of any of these works? No, I would 
> not,
> which,
> incidentally is just another one of those things in life that isn't 
> fair.
> But, at the end of the class, would I know something about the 
> progression
> of artistic expression that I didn't know at the start? Yes, 
> hopefully I
> would. That is the point. I likely won't enjoy it, but neither will 
> any of
> the other students in the class who were forced to take it to 
> graduate. So
> I
> had to work a little harder to not enjoy something. Such is life. If 
> we
> say
> we want to be treated like anybody else, we have to mean it. The 
> "when it
> suits me" Caveat undermines the whole stance.
>
> Imagine you get a waiver and don't have to take that bothersome art 
> class
> or
> science lab, but some time later you wish to go on a student trip 
> abroad,
> and the school doesn't want to allow you to come along. "Why do you 
> need
> to
> come with us to Egypt?" they ask, "It isn't required for your major, 
> and
> besides, it would really present us with some logistical problems."
> Wouldn't
> it be easier, and maybe more fair, to just have you skip the 
> optional
> trip?"
>
> I'll leave it to you to draw the parallel.
>
> If you think you can compete, compete. If you think it's just too 
> hard,
> then
> either just cash it in now, or take a real close look at what you 
> believe
> and ask yourself whether it is consistent with your ending up where 
> you
> want
> to be in life.
>
> Sorry for the length, but this thread has been driving me up the 
> wall. All
> the bellyaching: "This is hard because I'm blind." "That sucks 
> because I'm
> blind." A lot of things suck about being blind. A lot of things also 
> suck
> about being stupid, disorganized, or lazy; having cancer or having 
> one
> leg;
> or growing old and dying. That. is. life!
>
> Fortunately, we in the NFB are working together to make things less
> difficult, and through our collective work we have built, and 
> continue to
> build, a brighter future for all blind people. I will, however, 
> assure you
> that none of our progress was ever attained by requesting a waiver.
>
> Sean
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.lists%40gmail.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/missheather%40comcast.net