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

[Joshua Lester]

Wow!
Then, that's no surprise, because I've noticed other misspellings in
our convention agendas.
Oh well!
Blessings, Joshua

On 7/21/12, Marc Workman <mworkman.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>