[nabs-l] In Opposition to Divisions

Darian Smith dsmithnfb at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 22:36:48 UTC 2011


Joe,
 you write too much! *smile*
  Seriously, all.
  Joe's point about chapters and the work they can do is  the  only
thing that really really jumped out at me.
  Maybe  the reason it did was because I actually need to get on with
my  studying and other matters of the day that I've been multi-
tasking  with thus far.
  Chapters  idealy should do the work of mentoring, but  can you
counthow many chapters actually do make it a point to do this? I
suspect you could, and  there would be the problem.
 I know that some do it,  but  for the strong chapters that may exist,
there are plenty of weak ones.  What I mean, is that for every chapter
that meets, plans activities and actually does them, there are
probably five or six that either don't plan anything, plan and don't
follow through, or don't meet so they can succeed or fail at the other
two.
I'm not suggesting (nor do I think anyone is) that divisions should be
a substitute for  what should happen  on the state level, local level,
or what does happen on the national level at convention.  What I would
suggest, as is my belief, is that if divisions are doing their job,
they  will support the work of the organization, and of chapters
(depending on if the division is a state division or a national
division).    Here's what I mean; On the national level, divisions
connect and contextualize information to people, helping bring  people
into the greater organization.  As well, those national divisions help
connect people to affiliates when they can, either formally, or
informally, as nabs does try to do.
on the state level, state divisions should connect people to chapters,
 and chapters to divisions, therefore  strenthening the collective
power and ability for those affiliates to mobilize, mentor, create,
and  overall do the good work that  needs to be done.
 I'm not sure that made sense...  you be the judge.
  Best,
  Darian

On 3/10/11, Joe Orozco <jsorozco at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com
>


-- 
Darian Smith
Skype: The_Blind_Truth
Windows Live: Lightningrod2010 at live.com
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/goldengateace

"The purpose of life is a life of purpose.

— Robert Byrne




More information about the NABS-L mailing list