[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

Sat Jul 21 19:26:56 UTC 2012

Hey!
Welcome back to the list, Jamie!
Blessings, Joshua

On 7/21/12, Jamie Principato <blackbyrdfly at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>