[nabs-l] Waver

[Marc Workman]

Hi Sean,

You make some very persuasive points.  I hesitate to continue the debate, 
and I suspect some would prefer that I don't, but I think it's such an 
interesting topic with wider implications about how we see ourselves and 
other blind people, so I will make a few points.

SW,
What I take issue with is people making the jump from "I shouldn't have to" 
to "I am right to not." The mere fact that, in a perfectly just world, one 
would not have to do something, in no way means that, in the world as it 
actually exists, doing that thing is not the right thing to do.

MW,
I think this is the most significant point you make.  I don't really have a 
response.  That may have been what I was doing.  At least, I need to give 
this more thought.  The point, though, that I initially wanted to make comes 
in response to something you say later.

SW,
Read "requesting a waiver" as "taking the easy way out," which taking a 
waiver certainly is.

MW,
I don't know if this is just a throw away statement, or if you actually 
believe it.  I think you do believe it, and this is really the attitude that 
I think is wrong.  Taking a waver, or perhaps fighting for the right to 
receive a waver, which is often what is required, is not necessarily the 
easy way out.  It might be much easier to simply go along with the system as 
it stands.  Hire the readers, or have the disability office hire the readers 
for you, spend more time trying to understand the visually presented 
concepts, walk away with a mediocre grade, do less well than you otherwise 
would have done in your other classes, and take pride in the fact that you 
didn't take a waver.  Or, stand up to your department/faculty, convince 
those in charge that there are other ways you can demonstrate the bredth of 
knowledge they are looking for, ways that will not require you to deal as 
much with inaccessible materials, spend more time learning about the topics 
that interest you and that you plan to work on later in life, get better 
grades in all your classes, and take pride in the fact that you stood up for 
yourself and nagotiated an alternative arrangement that suited everyone 
better.  How is this taking the easy way out? The attitude I take issue with 
is that a waver necessarily, or certainly, equals taking the easy way out. 
You might think my reconstruction is farfetched, but I really don't think it 
is.  And I think it is important to be less sweeping in our condemnation of 
other's decisions.

If I can convince you or others that fighting for a waver is not necessarily 
taking the easy way out, and I don't mean that there are farfetched 
scenarios in which it is acceptable, but that it is a legitimate option that 
can be equally demanding, then that's all I'm aiming to do.  Just a little 
less total rejection of the waver as an acceptable, and sometimes 
appropriate, option.

SW,
if we don't figure out how to get along in the world we inhabit, we will 
never amass the power to change it.

MW,
There is something lofty about this statement.  It seems obviously true at 
first, but where's the justification, where's the argument to back it up. 
After some reflection, it's really not all that obvious to me.  How does 
learning how to get along as a slave bring one any closer to freedom? It's 
also worth noting that finding an alternative way of completing a course 
requirement is equally a means of getting along in the world we inhabit. 
And this brings me to my last point.

SW,
I think that the path toward justice in the classroom lies, in particular, 
in making information, which is frequently presented in a visual fashion, 
more readily available to blind students, and, in general, in teaching 
courses with an eye toward reaching as many students as possible, and not in 
granting students waivers or exemptions.

MW,
I admit that a waver might not do much to change the way classes are taught. 
Since my main point is that wavers are not necessarily the easier option, 
and that there are good reasons for pursuing them, I'm not troubled by that 
admission.  But it isn't clear to me that taking the class, hiring readers, 
relying on classmates, spending more time and effort on a single class, and 
generally placing the burden on the student rather than the professor and 
the university, where it belongs, will do much to change the system either. 
In other words, changing the way the classes are taught is independent of 
taking a waver or not.  The course might remain as inaccessible despite the 
student taking a waver, maybe even because the student went along with the 
inaccessible class, rather than arguing that it is inaccessible and should 
not be required.

There are other things you say that I'm unsure of or disagree with, but I 
think the most important points have been covered.

As someone who took philosophy, you should be used to the fine-tooth-comb 
treatment, but I apologize if it has been used to pick nits.  Not my 
intention, though too often my habit.

Regards,

Marc
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean Whalen" <smwhalenpsp at gmail.com>
To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Waver


> Marc,
>
> Here are some thoughts. I have taken your tack and entered comments in the
> text as if it were a running dialogue.
>
> 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.
>
> SW reply:
> In fact, I'm sure I didn't present the argument as strongly as it might 
> have
> been presented, but, cut me some slack here, I wrote quickly and didn't 
> know
> Professor Workman would be coming through with his fine-toothed comb.
> Seriously though, your formulation is more clear, though it still relies 
> on
> the commonsense proposition that we should not have to do things that are
> unfair/unjust (I use the two interchangeably). We shouldn't have to do
> things that are discriminatory, because those things are unfair, and we
> shouldn't have to do unfair things.
>
> MW,
> 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.
>
> SW reply,
> Actually, I agree with the argument in both cases. I shouldn't have to 
> take
> classes that require more work of me solely because I am blind. Nor should 
> a
> woman have to take a class, God knows what it might be, that would require
> more work of her solely because she is a woman. I recognize that my 
> initial
> post reads as if I take issue with the claim that "people shouldn't have 
> to
> do things that are unfair," or the parallel from your reformulation,
> "students shouldn't have to take classes that are discriminatory," but 
> that
> is not the case. In an ideal world, such injustices would not exist. What 
> I
> take issue with is people making the jump from "I shouldn't have to" to "I
> am right to not." The mere fact that, in a perfectly just world, one would
> not have to do something, in no way means that, in the world as it 
> actually
> exists, doing that thing is not the right thing to do. I think that the 
> path
> toward justice in the classroom lies, in particular, in making 
> information,
> which is frequently presented in a visual fashion, more readily available 
> to
> blind students, and, in general, in teaching courses with an eye toward
> reaching as many students as possible, and not in granting students 
> waivers
> or exemptions. I would suspect that you agree with me here, as you have
> basically said as much.
>
> One other question you can get at by thinking about other parallel 
> arguments
> is this: What if you take characteristics like sex or visual acuity out, 
> and
> substitute instead characteristics that have more to do with academic
> success. Should dyslexics, in a just world, not be forced to take lit
> classes? Should those who struggle with math, in an ideal world, be exempt
> from math courses? It seems obvious to me that the answer is no, so what 
> is
> the difference? Is calculus not discriminatory to somebody who lacks the
> facility to deal with numbers? Is there something more fundamental to the
> education of a person about math than art?
>
> MW,
> 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.
>
> SW reply,
> I largely agree with you. What should be challenged is the way the
> information is presented, not what information is required to be learned. 
> As
> Arielle has rightly pointed out, math, science, statistics, economics, and
> many other courses in which material is traditionally presented visually 
> are
> by no means inherently visual. We should absolutely fight for better 
> access,
> but in the time being, while access is still what it is, we have to choose
> between two less than perfect options. 1) Skip the class, miss out on the
> content, which obviously the university felt important, and send the 
> message
> that we cannot compete, or 2) deal with the injustice of having to do 
> extra
> work compared with that which we would have to do if we were sighted
> versions of ourselves. I'll pick number 2 any day.
>
>
>
> 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 reply:
> Yes, we do have to fight it, but while we are fighting it, we have to get 
> by
> the best we can. As I say, neither skipping the class nor taking it and
> doing extra work are ideal, but unless we wish to suspend our academic
> careers until the battle is won, that is the choice we are left with, and
> you know where I come down.
>
> 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 reply:
> That was kind of tongue in cheek. Clearly there is no argument from 
> justice
> or fairness on the part of the school here. What I was driving at was the
> fact that, to a given individual, what is fair or just often conveniently
> coincides with what would be best for them. Also, as I'm sure you 
> recognize,
> an argument's not being a good one rarely stops people from making it, and
> often with considerable effect. Surely if I had a class waved, and later
> wanted to do something that my school didn't want to let me do, the waiver
> would come back to bite, or at least attempt to bite, me in the ass.
>
>
> 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.
>
> SW reply:
> When I say we haven't made progress by "requesting a waiver" I, of course,
> do not mean it literally. Taken literally, it doesn't make much sense at
> all. Read "requesting a waiver" as "taking the easy way out," which taking 
> a
> waiver certainly is.
>
> MW,
> 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.
>
> SW reply:
> Thinking about the ought and knowing the ideal are very useful, and, in
> fact, necessary if one wants to change things for the better, but it is
> dangerous to fixate on how things ought to be to the point where one 
> becomes
> unwilling to deal with what actually is. Of course, full access and
> universal design are laudable goals. I share them with you. I agree that
> time and energy should be devoted to changing the system rather than
> exclusively to figuring out how to get along within the broken one we 
> have,
> but at the same time, if we don't figure out how to get along in the world
> we inhabit, we will never amass the power to change it. Both approaches 
> are
> necessary.
>
> Thanks for the interesting thoughts and forcing me to clarify my own
> thinking.
>
> Take care,
>
> 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