[nabs-l] what is Federationism

[Mike Freeman]

Mark:

I'll answer.

First, I obviously disagree with your assertion that we should design the
world for the lowest-skilled blind folks as well as those with skills.  We
do not do this for the sighted although I'll admit we're beginning to
distressingly dumb down all too many aspects of our society.  That way is
not the way of excellence.  But, for example, we push for literacy, not for
everything to be so designed that no reading is necessary.  To do otherwise
is impossible in a practical sense.

Likewise, trying to construct the world so that every blind person without
training can function is a practical impossibility.  Everyone needs
training.  And blind persons need more training than do the sighted in a
world constructed for the sighted.  That may not perhaps be fair but
fairness doesn't enter into it in that life isn't fair.

Moreover, trying to accommodate every disability will be a never-ending
task.  The only true way to accomplish it would be to eliminate those
disabilities.  So we're going to have to adapt to the world as it is to some
extent.  Universal design is a mirage.

AS for discrimination, I define it using the strict legal definition:
discrimination is treatment of a class that is detrimental, unreasonable and
bears no relationship to the end that resulted in the classification.  So
what constitutes discriminatory treatment varies by generation and how we
classify people and whether such classifications are considered reasonable
or not.

For example, before the Thirteenth and fourteenth Amendments, the
classification of people as slaves was certainly detrimental to them but
until the flowering of the Abolition Movement, many people considered it
perfectly reasonable.  Thankfully, that changed although it took
considerable struggle to get anywhere near universal change  and some would
argue we're not there yet.

Similarly, at one time many considered employment of the blind to be
unreasonable so universal placement in sheltered shops or refusing to hire
the blind in competitive industry wasn't viewed as discriminatory except, of
course, by the Federation who considered the classification of
unemployability both detrimental and unreasonable.  AS more and more blind
people proved themselves in the world of work and the Federation won
concessions from employers both in the courts and in the venue of public
opinion, the view that not hiring the blind wasn't discriminatory faded into
history, at least in theory.

So what does this have to do with technology access or such statutes as the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Twenty-first Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act?  Well, I believe that in terms of classic
discrimination theory, not much.  But these laws and others like them and
NFB's proposed Technology Bill of Rights Act made and will make new law in
which certain acts and omissions are to be declared discriminatory by
definition.  We can argue whether these are "good law" but the majority of
thinking people in this country, rightly, in my opinion, think they are.
But even these laws have mechanisms for adjudging whether particular
behavior or circumstances fit into a pattern of discrimination.  All these
laws have language in them such as "readily achievable" and "undue hardship"
to qualify when particular behavior and circumstances or, more properly,
remedies, are considered reasonable.

This was why NFB opposed ACB's suit against the U.S. Treasury to gain
"accessible" paper currency.  WE did not deny that such currency might be
useful or nice-to-have.  In fact, we were working with the bureau of
Printing and Engraving on how such currency might be designed.  What we
fought was the notion that *not* having it was discriminatory treatment of
the blind in that we contended that blind people had been successfully using
paper currency for many years.  We lost.  We're still working with the
Bureau of Printing and Engraving.

One final thing and then I'll cease and desist.  We of NFB do not say that
we *(never* ask the world to adapt.  Our recent record in trying to make
cyberspace accessible should speak for itself.  What many of us *do* say is
that we should carefully consider what we ask for and only ask for those
adaptations where we haven't devised alternative techniques to accomplish
tasks for ourselves or where we are completely shut out of opportunities (as
with inaccessible airport kiosks).  In other words, we do not automatically
buy into the notion that if sighted persons accomplish a certain task in a
certain way, provision must be made for the blind person to accomplish the
same task in an analogous fashion.  Sometimes this is the case; in other
cases, there are ways of doing things that do *not* involve society's having
to adapt for us.

Apologies for the length of this post.

Mike Freeman


-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Marc Workman
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:03 PM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] what is Federationism

I've made this point many times before, but it's been a while; perhaps there

are new subscribers who haven't heard it yet.

I think Mike's characterization of federation philosophy is accurate, and 
there's a lot worth championing in that way of understanding blindness, but 
there's also, in my opinion, a serious inconsistency.

Mike wrote,
virtually all of the problems of blindness are those experienced by other 
minorities within society, e.g., discriminatory treatment and lack of 
acceptance as persons of equal standing with the rest of society.

Mike also wrote,
Additionally, we of the NFB believe that we, the blind, can adapt to the 
world, requiring few modifications to function effectively in the world as 
it is.

I don't think this is quite write.  It seems to me federationism not only 
suggests that we can adapt to the world as it is, but that we ought to adapt

to the world as it is.  And this is the aspect of federationism I think is 
problematic and inconsistent.

My question is: why not adapt to the discrimination and unequal treatment? 
What I would argue is that designing products, services, institutions, etc 
in such a way that they are inaccessible is a form of discrimination.  So 
federationism requires 1) that we stand up and resist discrimination and 2) 
that we accept and adapt to discrimination, and this is inconsistent.

One could avoid the inconsistency by defining discrimination narrowly.  You 
might say that discrimination requires intent and that badly designing 
various products, services, etc is not done with discriminatory intent, and 
thus does not qualify as discrimination.  I could concede this point, but 
then I'd argue that recognizing these things as inaccessible and than 
failing to correct them is discrimination.  It conceivably wasn't a 
discriminatory intention that led builders of the Canadian Parliament to 
fail to include enough women's washrooms.  There weren't that many women in 
the building, and they certainly weren't sitting in the House of Commons, so

there was no need to build washrooms for them.  But when women did begin to 
be elected, failing to build the washrooms would be discriminatory.  Nor was

building the washrooms a matter of accommodating the special needs of women,

doing so was required as a matter of justice, it was the correction of a 
flaw in the initial design.  I think the same argument applies when it comes

to altering the world to make it more accessible for blind people.  Most 
things are designed under the assumption that they will be used by sighted 
rather than blind people.  To design things in this way is wrong, just as it

is wrong to design Parliament under the assumption that only men will use 
the washrooms.

You could challenge me on what I mean by inaccessible, and here's another 
place where I suspect I clash with federation philosophy.  A blind person 
shouldn't have to undergo significant blindness training in order to 
function in the world.  She should absolutely have the opportunity to 
acquire such training, but she shouldn't be condemned to a life of poverty 
and isolation if she fails to receive such training.  We should not be 
fighting for a world that only well-trained and qualified blind people can 
adapt to; we should be fighting for one where as many people as possible, 
with the widest variety of skills as possible, can flourish.  This is an 
ideal; it's not a place we should ever expect to reach, but we should 
nevertheless strive to achieve it.  To simply adapt to the world as it 
exists is to accept injustice and discrimination.

Apologies for digressing from the intent of the original question.

Cheers,

Marc
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] what is Federationism


> Chris:
>
> I conceive of Federationism as the attempt to live the Federation 
> philosophy
> in one's own life.  It is the active espousal of NFB philosophy in word 
> and
> deed.
>
> What is the Federation philosophy?  Here's what I wrote on the NFB of
> Washington website:
>
> The real problem of blindness is not the lack of eyesight; it is the
> misconceptions about blindness held by society.
> The blind are neither especially cursed nor especially blessed; they are
> normal people who cannot see.
> With training and opportunity, blindness can be reduced to the level of a
> physical nuisance or inconvenience.
> With training and opportunity, the average blind person can perform the
> average job in the average workplace as well as can his/her sighted
> colleagues.
> The blind are a minority within society and virtually all of the problems 
> of
> blindness are those experienced by other minorities within society, e.g.,
> discriminatory treatment and lack of acceptance as persons of equal 
> standing
> with the rest of society.
> In essence, NFB's philosophy of blindness amounts to the knowledge that it
> is respectable to be blind.
>
> Additionally, we of the NFB believe that we, the blind, can adapt to the
> world, requiring few modifications to function effectively in the world as
> it is.
>
> I joined the Federation and am still a Federationist because I believe in
> the tenets of NFB philosophy and, having had some difficulty securing
> employment, because I vowed that I would do what I could to see to it that
> such discrimination wouldn't happen to the blind of future generations. 
> It
> is my way of doing what I can to see to it that the blind achieve
> first-class citizenship and complete integration into society on a basis 
> of
> equality with the sighted.  I've always been interested in the law,
> especially constitutional law, and the NFB is a great way for me to play
> lawyer without a law degree (I've authored several Washington laws) and
> gives me a chance to examine in detail such concepts as discrimination, 
> what
> we can and should expect from society and, perhaps more importantly, what 
> we
> shouldn't expect.
>
> Mike Freeman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of Chris Nusbaum
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:32 PM
> To: blindtlk at nfbnet.org
> Cc: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [nabs-l] what is Federationism
>
> Hi, all.
>
> Here's an interesting, maybe somewhat philosophical question for all of 
> you.
> Sorry for those of you who don't like these topics, you don't have to 
> reply.
> I've always been an NFB member (since I was very little) but I was never
> really active in it.  Oh sure, I followed some of the issues and had some
> oppinions, but I never really was that active in the NFB itself.  Now, 
> after
> I went to the NFB's Leadership and Advocacy program, I seem to have a new
> sense of support for the Federation and as I'm learning more, I want to be
> more active in it.  I really am starting to understand and strongly 
> believe
> in the NFB philosophy, or at least how I interpret it.  So I want to ask 
> you
> a threefold question: what does Federationism mean to you, what do you 
> think
> the NFB philosophy is, and why are you a Federationist? I'm not going to
> tell you my opinion just yet, mainly because I don't really have a strong
> one.  That's why I want to hear from you, think about your opinions, and
> finally decide what I believe.  I look forward to hearing all of your
> thoughts!
>
> Chris Nusbaum
>
> "A loss of sight, never a loss of vision!" (Camp Abilities motto)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/k7uij%40panix.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/mworkman.lists%40gma
il.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/k7uij%40panix.com