[nabs-l] spelling tenBroek was Re: NFB Philosophy

[Marc Workman]

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

Then you've never seen it spelled correctly. Check out the NFB site where I got the article
http://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/law/therighttoliveintheworldthedisabledinthelawoftorts.html

Little T, big B. Oh yes, also important, he was born in my home province of Alberta, Canada. That's apropos of nothing. I just like to point it out.

Cheers,

Marc
> n 2012-07-21, at 3:17 AM, Joshua Lester 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/mworkman.lists%40gmail.com