[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

[Joshua Lester]

When seeing his name in Braille, I've never seen the B, in Tenbroek,
capitalized!
Blessings, Joshua

On 7/21/12, Marc Workman <mworkman.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Justin, Arielle, and others,
>
> I warn you at the outset that this is a very long message. I don't want to
> discourage anyone from reading, it's also very good, but if you're not
> interested in philosophy, Jacobus tenBroek, or obnoxious and demeaning
> birds, then this isn't for you.
>
> Justin wrote,
> 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.
>
> I don't think I said that the NFB does not fight to break down barriers.
> I've attended convention once, and I listened to nearly all of this year's
> convention. The organization does incredible work, no doubt about that.
>
> I think my message contained three concerns:
>
> 1. No mention in Sean's account of NFB philosophy of the importance of
> removing physical barriers.
>
> 2. The suggestion that we have two options: "we can choose to accept it and
> move on, or we can wallow and wine that things aren't fair."
>
> 3. The concern that finding workarounds or adapting makes us less likely to
> put as much effort into removing the barrier.
>
> The first two could be attributed to writing hastily or not stating things
> quite right. That's fine, and if that's the case, then I shouldn't have said
> anything. I think, though, that there is a deeper sentiment behind what Sean
> wrote, an actual disagreement between my position and that of NFB
> philosophy, which I'll try to spell out below, after a housekeeping point.
>
> Justin wrote,
> 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.
>
> A fair point. I meant no disrespect to Sean. I have tremendous respect for
> Sean and other NABS leaders and members. I've been on this list for a while,
> though, and we have actually had similar discussions in the past multiple
> times, but my thinking on the matter has deepened every time, so I did not
> intend to imply annoyance or frustration, even though I recognize it came
> across that way.
>
> Arielle wrote,
> 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?
>
> To respond first to the question at the end, I don't think they're mutually
> exclusive. I would argue that there is at least a tension between them
> though. If a problem is only a problem for a few blind people, the others
> having learned to deal with it, I think it's less likely that the majority
> is going to be as interested in trying to remove that problem. I have no
> empirical evidence to back up this claim. It seems like common sense to me.
>
> Now I'm not saying that we should stop trying to teach that majority to deal
> with that problem. I'm saying that, when making decisions about policy, when
> advocating for various positions, we shouldn't ignore that minority. The
> goal should be to design a world in which blind people can get about without
> first having to spend nine months to a year working full time on blindness
> training. If you can get that sort of training, that's great. I wish
> programs like that were available in Canada. However, I believe we should
> advocate for a world where such extensive training is not necessary. My
> reason for thinking this is that not everyone is going to be capable of
> receiving and benefitting from such training. Moreover, I believe, as a
> general principle, in universal design, which means designing things in such
> a way that as little special training and as few tools as possible are
> required. I don't think the NFB, in the recent past, has held this
> position.
>
> I do think, however, that tenBroek articulates a position along these lines
> in "The Right to Live in the World".
> http://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/law/therighttoliveintheworldthedisabledinthelawoftorts.html
>
> But it would take me a while to fully spell out my reasons for thinking
> that. I'll just quote a couple of passages and leave the fuller explanation
> for another day.
>
> "Simply declaring that the disabled, too, have rights of access and use and
> forbidding building operators to deny them would do little for the wheel
> chair-bound paraplegic physically denied access to and use of flights of
> stairs and narrow doorways. Moreover, prohibiting the installation of such
> barriers would not do the trick. A more constructive and affirmative
> approach is required. Buildings and facilities must be erected according to
> a design taking account of the disabled and making buildings and facilities
> accessible to them and functional for them."
>
> So it's not just a prohibition against denying a person the right to enter a
> building, nor is it a matter of simply not building barriers, what tenBroek
> advocates is building things in a way that makes them accessible to disabled
> people and functional for them. I would argue, too, that tenBroek would not
> have included the caveat: accessible to them and functional for them,
> assuming they are sufficiently trained in the skills of blindness. Here is
> another passage.
>
> "Apparently, thus, in England, despite the talk about bringing the law up to
> date, the street- tampering defendant is entitled to assume that blind
> pedestrians will be trained in the use of a cane which they will carry, and
> that a light, moveable, rail fence will be detected by the cane user in time
> for him to stop. The holding of the Haley case goes no further than the
> facts of the case require; not nearly as far as the facts of life require.
> Only a minor fraction of the blind are trained and skillful in the use of
> the cane; a somewhat larger percentage, but still very small, use canes.
> What about the rest? Are they condemned to a life of ostracism? 'One is
> entitled to expect of a blind person,' said Lord Reid in the Haley case, 'a
> high degree of skill and care because none but the most foolhardy would
> venture to go out alone without having that skill and exercising that
> care.'"
>
> I'm sure that tenBroek would have approved of increasing the percentage of
> blind people who are trained with a cane, but I suspect he would have
> encourage policy makers, courts, designers, etc not simply to assume that
> all blind people will be so trained. The right to live in the world, I'm
> suggesting, is not and should not be limited only to those who have received
> proper training.
>
> Arielle said that NFB increasingly takes the approach of promoting
> individual coping while advocating for the removal of barriers. I'm not sure
> I've seen enough to call it a trend, but it was interesting to hear what
> sounded to me like a softening of NFB's position on accessible pedestrian
> signals during Lauren McLarney speech to the general session. Here's the
> exact quote.
>
>> "What we're trying to do is make sure that if audible pedestrian signals
>> are meant to make audible output for blind people... that those sounds are
>> not demeaning, they're not birds chirping, there's not obnoxious beeping,
>> that it's reasonable, and it says `walk' or `don't walk'"."
>
> There now at least seems to be the acceptance that these signals can be
> useful. The concern now is that the standard sounds are obnoxious and
> demeaning. I think that's progress from 2003, where the NFB position was
> that, and I'm quoting again,
>
> "Audible traffic signals are in many instances a disadvantage because they
> add so much noise pollution to the environment that listening to traffic
> becomes difficult. However, they may be installed at complex intersections
> where they will assist in the comprehension of complex traffic patterns."
> http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm03/bm0301/bm030102.htm
>
> I've never heard signals that were so loud as to drown out traffic, and when
> they are that loud, they're clearly badly designed. They're also not useful
> only in cases where traffic patterns are complex, unless heavy north-south
> traffic and light east-west traffic and vice versa is counted as complex.
> And if that is complex, that covers quite a few intersections around me.
>
> Again, though, the underlying position seemed to be: a properly trained
> blind person can cross streets just fine, so don't bother installing those
> signals that might make crossing streets safer for some blind people,
> especially because, quoting again,
>
> "It is dangerous to ask for modifications to the environment that we do not
> need, and it leads to an impression that blind people lack competence."
> http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm03/bm0301/bm030102.htm
>
> What counts as needed or not is going to depend very much on a variety of
> factors, previous training, creativeness, intelligence, presence or absence
> of other disabilities, and so on, and when advocating, the threshold for
> something's not being necessary should be set very high. I would also say
> that the response to misunderstandings about the installation of APSs should
> be met with campaigns to educate the public, rather than with refusing
> potentially useful changes to the environment on the grounds that some
> people might misinterpret why those changes were made.
>
> I hope I've been able to articulate the different views about individual and
> environmental adaptation and why I hold one and not the other.
>
> For anyone still reading, good for you. I probably would have hit delete a
> while back.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marc
> On 2012-07-19, at 10:12 PM, Arielle Silverman wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/mworkman.lists%40gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/jlester8462%40students.pccua.edu
>