[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

Sat Jul 21 10:09:48 UTC 2012

It's always capitalized in Print.

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Joshua Lester <
jlester8462 at students.pccua.edu> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/blackbyrdfly%40gmail.com
>