[nabs-l] majority

Arielle Silverman nabs.president at gmail.com
Mon Mar 28 04:58:16 UTC 2011


I totally agree with Kurt. I also think it is good to recall the
distinction between membership and active membership. I would consider
anyone who attends NFB events, or who contributes to any of our
causes, to be a member of our organization. In fact, I personally
would consider all of you to be members of the National Association of
Blind Students because you are subscribed to our listserv, whether or
not you have ever paid your $5 dues. However, only active members are
the ones who have the authority to vote on policies or to run for
elected leadership positions. To become an active member, you must
meet the criteria set forth in the constitution, and often must make a
small financial contribution (i.e. pay dues). We place no limits on
how many sighted people come to our events or help our cause; we only
limit the percentage of our active, voting membership that can be
sighted, to ensure that our decisionmaking membership is made up
predominantly of the people we represent as an organization.

Arielle

On 3/27/11, Kirt Manwaring <kirt.crazydude at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jedi,
>   I can only speak from my experience...but I don't think blindness
> really shaped my world view all that much.  I don't think it gave me
> any really significant conceptual barriers to overcome, I've been
> blind since birth and I guess it's effected me some.  But I don't
> really feel different from my sighted friends because of my
> blindness...I don't think it changes my personality or likes or
> dislikes or who I am or whatever.  But that was kind of a little off
> topic, so I'll go back to what you brought up.
>   I think it's reasonable to say the NFB should have blind people as a
> majority, with the possibility for exceptions to be made on the
> chapter level.  It's like...the American Bar Assiociation represents
> lawyers, so I'd be shocked if they allowed the majority of their
> members to not practice law.  That's not trying to promote inequality
> between lawyers and citizens at large, it's just that lawyers know
> best how to represent lawyers.  Just like the NFL players' union we've
> all been hearing so much about lately is made up of NFL players.
> Imagine if any interested fan, or coach, or manager, or radio
> announcer, or sports analyst could join the players' union?  It's not
> the same situation, because there definitely is a value for sighted
> members in the NFB, but the same principal applies.  The players'
> union represents players, so it's made up of players.  The National
> Education Association is made up mostly of teachers, because it's a
> group that represents teachers.  I think any special interest group,
> especially a group representing citizens with a disability, has the
> right to demand the majority of its' members have the particular
> disability.  That's not prejudice...heck, if there ever were such a
> thing as a National Federation of the Sighted, (I know it's
> rediculous, bear with me), I think it would be perfectly reasonable
> for them to have rules requiring a sighted majority because they'd be
> representing the interests of the sighted.  Bad analogy, but I think
> it gets my point across.  Have I lost you guys yet?
>   Respectfully yours,
> Kirt
>
> On 3/26/11, Jedi <loneblindjedi at samobile.net> wrote:
>> Bridget,
>>
>> As a case of history, something like what you describe really did
>> happen. There are several blindness organizations in Canada of the
>> blind. One of them, now called the National federation of the Blind
>> Alliance for Equality, started out as the first Canadian organization
>> similar to the NFB in the U.S. At some point in their history, they
>> allowed sighted people to vote without any restrictions on ratios of
>> blind to sighted. At some point, the number of sighted persons did
>> outweigh the number of blind persons in the group, and the sighted
>> really did change the direction of the organization such that the
>> original integrity of the group's purpose was compromised. It wasn't
>> because the sighted could see; that wasn't the problem. Instead, it's
>> that sighted people (the majority of them) really don't get blindness
>> on a fundamental level because it's contrary to their experience of the
>> world as sighted persons. The sighted (for the most part) tend to see
>> the world through their perspective and will act accordingly just as we
>> act accordingly with our perspective. Though no harm is meant, the
>> sighted may choose policies that aren't good for blind people. The
>> Google Aps project is a case in point: no one means to discriminate
>> against the blind; it just didn't occur to sighted users and designers
>> that the blind can't get at the applications because they've really got
>> no cause to understand. Most sighted people don't understand what the
>> problem is with touch screens because it doesn't occur to them that
>> they're a problem for the blind even though it should be quite obvious.
>> Meanwhile, the problems that sighted people envision related to
>> blindness are things we've overcome ages ago, but they haven't been a
>> part of that process so they simply don't know. Yes, we can educate the
>> sighted, but it takes a special sighted person to totally deconstruct
>> their perspective and taken-for-granted assumptions about the world for
>> them to get it. Yes, some blind people must go through a similar
>> deconstruction, but I imagine that such a deconstruction may be more
>> difficult for sighted persons in some ways since they adhere pretty
>> strongly to a very visual reality. For the blind who must relearn, I
>> wonder if it isn't a tad easier because there's a gut level
>> understanding that a preference for vision is pretty arbitrary in
>> nature. Maybe I'm wrong, and I definitely think I'm not doing myself
>> justice. What do you all think?
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Jedi
>>
>> Original message:
>>> But does it matter if the majority is blind, or should it matter that
>>> the majority holds to Federation philosophy?
>>
>>> Yes we are the blind speaking for the blind-- as it should be.  And we
>>> should maintain that a majority of our leadership be blind, but when did
>>> we decide that membership come at a cost?  Are we not trying to change
>>> what it means to be blind?  Does this not include attempting to reach
>>> out to the blind and sighted alike in hopes they are willing to learn
>>> and embrace our philosophy?  Why would this look bad, or change the
>>> focus of the organization?  Shouldn't it be about a collective voice
>>> furthering Federation goals and causes?
>>
>>> We walk a fine line between independence and reverse prejudice.  And as
>>> Miranda described, how was it fair that her chapter take a head count of
>>> the blind and sighted just to say yes or no to a sighted member wanting
>>> to join?  How does this look to someone who presumeably was ready to
>>> join the NFB and do their part?
>>
>>> I have heard the argument that a sighted majority could vote against our
>>> current policies and change the organization, but is not this judging
>>> sighted people just because they can "see?"  What is to stop a blind
>>> majority from doing the same?  Not all blind Federationist are "on
>>> board" with every aspect of the organization.  Isn't it making an
>>> awfully big assumption to claim a sighted majority, who chose to join a
>>> progressive group, would storm in and change our direction, even though
>>> they willingly joined a progressive organization?
>>
>>> I am not suggesting we try to have more sighted people over blind
>>> people, though if this ever did happen, it would be a sad state of
>>> affairs that few blind people cared enough to join.
>>
>>> For a group seeking equality, it seems odd that we would exclude people
>>> based on their eyesight.  Sound familiar?
>>
>>> Bridgit
>>
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:09:06 -0400
>>> From: Jorge Paez <jorgeapaez at mac.com>
>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>>         <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Blind Majority
>>> Message-ID: <15D2C523-E8DC-441F-A903-279641EEA4A4 at mac.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>>
>>> Miranda:
>>> I understand your points,
>>> but under the constitution, going over majority would mean the sighted
>>> have the major vote, which would defeat the NFB's purpose for existing.
>>
>>
>>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
>>
>> --
>> Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network.  Visit
>> www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/kirt.crazydude%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/nabs.president%40gmail.com
>


-- 
Arielle Silverman
President, National Association of Blind Students
Phone:  602-502-2255
Email:
nabs.president at gmail.com
Website:
www.nabslink.org




More information about the NABS-L mailing list