[nabs-l] In Opposition to Divisions

[Joe Orozco]

Arielle, and others,

Thank you for a well-written and compelling post.  You certainly gave it
more thought than I ever meant for my outlandish notion to deserve, but so
long as you're entertaining my far-flung ideas, I'll give you a little more
analysis to better help you and others understand my rationale.

For people to understand my point about divisions, they will need to
understand my theory on membership behavior.  As technology expands, and as
we move further into an age of conveniences, it's only going to become more
difficult to motivate people to action and do the grunt work that is
necessary to make it possible for such a large organization to accomplish
significant tasks.  Our generation does not have to fight the tangible
battles that our founders did to bring about better conditions.  True,
things could be better for us today, but it would appear that we have not
faced the same deplorable challenges our current leadership faced in their
age to do things like entering and graduating from college, things we take
for granted today.  We live in an era where technology has sufficiently
advanced to the point where we can complete assignments with reasonable
comfort.  In fact, in another post I might elaborate on an argument that for
all its advantages, technology may be partially responsible for the
persistent unemployment rate among the blind, because it provides a sense of
productivity without actually motivating blind people to be productive.  In
addition to technology, we have a fairly decent set of laws and policies
that protect persons with disabilities, and so when faced with glaring
adversities, we need only find a group willing to take the issue to court
and rectify the wrong.  Naturally, there are advantages to this sort of
protection, but it also promotes a sense of entitlement among the up and
coming generation.  Young people know that they do not have to belong or
participate in a consumer group to enjoy the privileges that these groups
have worked to establish.  Positive outcomes can be obtained through apps
and lawsuits.

What this means in the context of the current discussion is that a lot of
people attend conventions to reconnect with people more than they do to
actively work toward resolving fundamental challenges.  The challenges that
are most likely to be appealing are those that, ironically, trace back to
technology like the Kindle that would not read or the airport kiosk that
will not speak or the car that must one day drive, and even these are
challenges we can conveniently use technology to advocate from our homes.
Why attend national conventions when one can listen to live streams of the
event?  Why visit our representatives' district offices to speak on
pertinent issues when one can send an e-mail or lift a telephone?  As
technology continues to catch up to our most basic desires, and even more
importantly, as technology allows us to fulfill our need for communication
more conveniently, the less urgent it becomes to do things like physically
attending national conventions and the less real those fundamental
challenges around which conventions are organized become.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with human interaction.  It's healthy and
should be actively sought; however, one has to wonder where to draw the line
between doing the work of what blind people need and merely providing a
stage for what blind people want.  We've seen how conventions have been
gradually reduced in length, and so the diminishing time that we do have
available amongst ourselves should be put to productive use.  In my opinion,
this should mean actively brainstorming ways to ensure that all the
resolutions that are passed at convention are actually fulfilled or
significantly moved along as opposed to constructing what generally amount
to be nothing more than position statements on current issues.  I think we
would achieve this if we collapsed the division meeting schedule from the
fanciful to the most relevant.

You say that divisions are important first because they "facilitate the
mentoring and networking that is such an integral part of what we do."
While I am a huge fan of mentoring and networking, I believe both services
are met within local chapters and affiliates which do more to meet our
integral purpose around the clock than divisions can achieve once or twice a
year.  To my knowledge, the NFB and ACB are the only organizations that are
as thinly spread as they are with their vast menus of associations of this
and divisions of that.  If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might wonder if
the NFB has allowed so many special interest groups to exist because they
serve as a distraction when fundamental progress is not achieved, but
seriously, do we know of any national organization that in addition to
chapters, allows for so many special interest groups?

Your second reason for promoting divisions is that they "inform the rest of
the organization about what advocacy issues matter and how to tackle them."
Again, with strong chapters and affiliates the same can be achieved, perhaps
with even better results because they can report on issues from a local
perspective.  The National Center has the staff and resources to not only
monitor but react to developing issues.  We do not need e-mail lists to be
associated with divisions for there to be e-mail lists.  We do not need to
water down the convention agenda to allow for division meetings that will
cover the same concerns that could be openly debated on the convention
floor.

In other words, there is no element of uniqueness in either of these two
points.  If the divisions disappeared tomorrow, the same level of mentorship
and networking and advocacy could occur.  The National Center could fashion
departments around the four or five core issues under which all divisions
fall, organize roundtable discussions at conventions to flesh out the
current concerns of the day, save a little money by maintaining a tighter
convention, and still keep the activities we all love and attend like the
Louisiana play, the mock trial, and other favorites.

If the various associations still want to exist, they can pay for meeting
space to coincide alongside the NFB convention or even pick their own
meeting sites and dates completely removed from the convention altogether.
The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, the National Association
of Hispanic Journalists, and the National PTA are just three examples of
people who felt strongly enough about their issues to form their own groups,
plan their own conventions and make great strides.  One might even argue
that separation from the NFB might actually achieve the bonus of attracting
more members if only because some people do not come to conventions by
virtue of them being hosted by the NFB.  To me it would seem that our
current divisions are only able to exist because the NFB is able to fund
their efforts, and that, to me, smells like baby-sitting.

I gave you the scenic tour of my rationale because the discussion originally
started in the context of the future of the NFB.  In some ways the
organization has grown so large as to make the discussion of one item
impossible without touching on another, but in other ways the organization
has grown so thin as to make its actual size smaller than we may know.  My
projection is that convention attendance in Orlando will be slightly larger
by virtue of the city where the convention is being held.  I do not think
the attendance rate would be the same if the convention had returned to
Dallas for a consecutive year, and what does that really tell you about the
organization's productivity?  Times are changing, both in terms of how we
act and communicate, and if Brice's teacher's observation is correct, there
will be differences among blind people themselves.  This means we should
evaluate the capital of our resources to see where we are performing well
and where we are just exhausting efforts as is the case with NFB divisions.

Now, having written all that, let me let you in on a secret that I can
afford to pass along since my days on the student lists are numbered.  The
discussions are fantastic, but now that school is behind me, there are too
many personal and professional endeavors from which I should not be allowing
myself to be so easily distracted!  Besides, only a few people will have
gotten this far in my rambling, so the secret will not really get out unless
you're a snitch.

I mean, Let's be serious.  You and I know that divisions will not go away
just because I think they can be a potential drain on resources.  So why
bother writing an elaborate case against them?  Because it is only through
learning how to respond to opposing views that the organization will remain
strong.  It is far easier to readily agree than it is to coherently
disagree.  The majority of people who raise opposition to the NFB's way of
doing things usually do it from outside the NFB and are almost always morons
working with nothing more substantive than hearsay, whereas I can write from
firsthand knowledge to hopefully push you to think outside the box in
defense of what you believe.  Yes, I have my concerns about the future about
the NFB, and I genuinely believe that some of our leaders are about as
useful as teats on a bull, but I do not really think divisions are as
threatening or a waste of time as this post would lead you to believe.  I
could in fact pull a U turn and argue against my own post line by line with
equal conviction.  I'm really excited about the Blind Driver Challenge, but
last year I was curious to see how people would respond to my challenge that
the project is a waste of time and money.  In a separate post, and even in
the current discussion, I advanced the controversial idea that the NFB will
cease to exist in fifty years.  I had been hoping for responses a little
more vehement than what was said, because while today some of you have
argued for why divisions are necessary, tomorrow you may need to argue for
why the NFB itself is needed.  This may sound extreme, but remember that the
ACB was partially born out of some agencies' desire to see the NFB fail.  We
should not be lulled into presuming that history is not capable of recurring
wearing a different outfit and toting the same intention.

So, if I can write long posts on both sides of an issue, what do I really
believe?  I'll let you decide that for yourself.  People assume my loyalty
to the cause is weak because of the posts I sometimes write.  I've never
needed anyone's approval to know that I'm a loyal member and would defend
the organization when it comes down to the wire.  If you follow the NFB
philosophy to the letter, you may help the organization stay ahead.  If you
learn to defend it, you'll help the organization stay there.

Best,

Joe

"Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves,
some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up at all."--Sam Ewing