[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

[Arielle Silverman]

Hi all,
I think Sean's description of "NFB philosophy" as he sees it was
excellent. I would also add two things:
1. I don't think the NFB has a patent on this philosophy. In fact, I
would argue that most committed ACB members and many other successful
blind people who choose not to affiliate with organizations also
espouse the positive philosophy of blindness that Sean described. The
NFB has chosen to make this philosophy a central focus, but that does
not mean that non-NFB members cannot live by it themselves or
encourage others to accept it. It is important to remember that the
ACB split off from the NFB, and although I am not an expert on what
happened, everything I've read about the split suggests that it
occurred because of disagreements about how leadership in the
organization should be structured, not about fundamental philosophy of
blindness. In more recent years the NFB and ACB have taken differing
approaches to some policy issues, but that does not necessarily mean
that their core philosophies of blindness are at odds. I don't think
the two organizations should merge into one super-organization of
blind Americans because I like the fact that individuals have choices
about which organization to join and that there's not one big group
monopolizing the organizational stage. But I also think that the NFB
and ACB have more in common in terms of their goals for changing what
it means to be blind than we might think on first glance.

2. To address Marc's point about universal design: In the nine years I
have been a part of the NFB, I have observed that the NFB increasingly
takes a pragmatic dualistic approach to promoting both individual
coping with accessibility barriers and advocacy to bring them down. I
would urge you to read the NFB 2012 resolutions once they become
available online, and you will find that most of these resolutions
address access barriers in one form or another and advocate for their
removal. I believe the NFB is moving further in the direction of
pushing for accessibility and I have seen change on this front even
since the time when I first joined nine years ago. However, though we
are committed to doing what we can to promote universal access for
blind people, we also are aware that, realistically, it will take time
for all those in power to make it happen. In the meantime, we are also
working to help blind individuals figure out how to adapt to those
barriers we are not yet able to control. For example, we will fight
for full access to educational technology, but instead of waiting to
enroll in college until this access happens, we will also work to
harness the support of human readers and other adaptations so that we
can still be successful in spite of these barriers. In other words,
instead of pitting individual adaptation and universal design against
each other as mutually exclusive options, why not take a dual approach
toward both of these goals?
Arielle

On 7/19/12, Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu> wrote:
> I have a few notes for a few different people on this thread.
>
> Tyler:
> I understand the hesitancy about getting involved when you don't fully agree
> with everything that everyone else believes.  I once had that hesitation
> about getting involved with organized religion.  I started going to a campus
> ministry at my college because a friend sold me on the free dinner, and I
> quickly learned that no church is homogenous in beliefs.  In some churches,
> the leadership will try like mad to perpetuate the idea that everyone in the
> church believes exactly what they do and that anyone who disagrees slightly
> is against them.  In my church, we aren't like that, and we understand that
> people have differing views.  We unite under the idea that it's okay to
> disagree on individual issues and discuss them, but we have generally the
> same core beliefs.
> That's how we are in the Federation.  If you don't agree with something
> we're doing, I'll make an effort to help you come to terms with it because
> that's my individual personality.  I often find that, when someone disagrees
> with something we're doing, it is because of a lack of understanding of what
> we're doing or the underlying issue.  At the end of the day, I won't shun
> you.
>
> Marc Workman:
>  Of course we, in the Federation, fight to break down the barriers.  Why do
> you think we do legislative lobbying?  Washington Seminar is an absolutely
> amazing experience, and you should try it!  We honor adaptability because
> there's no sense in being helpless in the meantime while we work on those
> barriers.
> On the mention of Sean's place in social stratification:  I am a colored
> person, I'm the first person in my family to go to college, and I don't
> bother wallowing in the lack of advantage that I face because of it.  Quite
> frankly, I'm not even convinced that I am disadvantaged by being a colored
> person.  With the first generation college student part, I have to seek
> mentors in the academic process from outside my family, and I know many,
> many educated Federationists who have eagerly fulfilled that role for me.
> Lastly, I've made comments like "i've had this conversation with you before"
> in a public manner to other people-trust me, I have-but I've realized in
> retrospect that it only creates distance between everyone who hears me and
> myself.  A lot of people take that as an implied personal attack.  I'm not
> saying Sean took it that way, but I'm sure plenty of people did read it that
> way.
>
> Brandon Keith Biggs, I loved reading this part of your email:
> In my book, there is no larger crime than depriving someone of their dreams
> and the second biggest crime is taking away the chance for people to reach
> for those dreams. For while there are dreams, there is hope. With hope life
> always has enough energy to turn the corner and keep going.  The NFB to me
> is that hope and the rock and refuge that is always there for me if I need
> it.
>
> Yours in Federationism,
>
> Justin Salisbury
>
> Justin M. Salisbury
> Class of 2012
> B.A. in Mathematics
> East Carolina University
> president at alumni.ecu.edu
>
> “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
> the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”    —MARGARET MEAD
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>