[nabs-l] NFB and conservatism/liberalism

[Sophie Trist]

Ryan, that was a great post and I pretty much agree with 
everything. I do believe that some things the NFB deals with are 
genuine civil rights issues, such as the subminimum wage issue 
(it's slave labor no matter what.) But if there's an inaccessible 
website, I'm not gonna flip out about it. I don't have time for 
that. We all have our lives to live that are separate from 
blindness or the NFB. I've seen people who live for the 
organization, who've memorized all the speeches and the history. 
I enjoy being a part of the NFB, but it's not my life. I just 
work around things like inaccessability by either using another 
website or getting a reader to help me out. Unless it's a MAJOR, 
and I mean EPICALLY MAJOR, issue, fighting and suing is not the 
answer. Self-advocacy is. And I'm talking about the kind of 
advocacy where you politely approach the offending person/group 
and hold a civil conversation with them where you calmly and 
eloquently state your problem, using logic instead of threats or 
belligerence. These are just my thoughts, and I look forward to 
more of this discussion.

Yours sincerely,
Sophie

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Silveira <ryan.l.silveira at gmail.com
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org
Date sent: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 21:24:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] NFB and conservatism/liberalism

Hi All,

While I agree that some of the philosophies of the NFB (e.g. 
blindfold training, maintaining braille literacy and the 
“empowering yourself” approach) are, indeed, conservative ideas 
and approaches, the civil rights portion of the NFB takes a very 
liberal and rather belligerent approach.  I do not say that all 
of the members of the NFB think and act this way, but there is a 
group of members (I have heard it called the “advocacy arm”) who 
seem to enjoy banding together and fighting the rest of the world 
for what they consider to be their rights.  I am often told, 
“That is an outsider’s perspective of our organization.  We’re 
not really like that.”  To that, I say: the “outsiders” had to 
gain that perspective somehow.  They did not just make it up.  
While I am proud to be a member of the NFB, I see no need to 
advertise my pride in the organization, nor to form some kind of 
army for the blind and either virtually or realistically march 
for our rights.  The group within the organization which takes 
this liberal approach seem, to me, to purposefully find the most 
trivial things with which they see a problem and then shout about 
how we are not equal and how the government or a school needs to 
change for us, but that there is no reason whatsoever for us to 
try to work with them.  If a website is inaccessible or a certain 
program does not work the way you want it to work, shouting about 
civil rights is not the answer—working with the developers to 
make the website or program accessible is.  The only reason one 
should fight the civil rights battle is if they are truly being 
denied a human right.  examples of situations in which a civil 
rights battle might be appropriate are: if a person is not 
admitted into a school because they are blind or not admitted 
into a restaurant they really wanted to go to because they had a 
service dog..  Even then, publicizing the discrimination and 
suing the organization is a last resort.  There was a speech 
given by Dr. Mauer recently (I believe some time in the last 
year) during which he enumerated the legal civil rights victories 
various blind students have had.  While listening to this speech, 
I felt as if we were fighting some kind of war—the blind minority 
against the sighted majority.  This is not a war, fellow 
students. We are not fighting.  Those who continuously cry for 
equality simply want to be greater than those whom they feel 
oppress them.  Equality is gained when both sides meet in the 
middle and come up with a solution.  It cannot, it will not be 
established if one side continuously fights the other, for 
eventually one side will emerge victorious and the other will be 
defeated.  Rather than taking the liberal approach, we, the 
minority, should learn to work with the sighted majority.  If we 
want them to work for us, making things more accessible, then we 
need to be able to work with them and to make compromises.  Only 
then will we have equality.


Ryan L. Silveira
Corresponding Secretary
Ohio Association of Blind Students
A Division of the National Federation of the Blind, “Changing 
What it Means to be Blind”
(203) 731-7580
ryan.l.silveira at gmail.com

On Apr 3, 2014, at 1:24 AM, ichoosechrist2 at gmail.com wrote:

 Thank you Ashley.
 Lora

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Apr 2, 2014, at 6:58 PM, "Ashley Bramlett" 
<bookwormahb at earthlink.net> wrote:

 Melissa,
 I agree and I hope the shift is toward educating companies to 
make their software accessible and doing outreach so they know 
our capabilities.
 We need to focus more on employment, definitely. Due to the 
inaccessible software on pcs,  electronics going touch screen and 
employer attitudes, we are not increasing our employment rate.
 It used to be you could be a receptionist or admin assistant or 
secretary as a blind person, good entry level job. This was in 
the 90s when we had pcs, but no digital touch screens. Okay, now, 
you have inaccessible equipment; scanners, copiers, and printers 
have screens one has to read to operate them beyond the basics. 
Even phones now have menus we cannot read. We can operate them 
and make calls, sure, but to go change settings, we cannot do 
that.
 Digital things has caused inaccessibility. And, jobs blind 
people used to have are disappearing. Such jobs include 
secretaries, switch board operators, and receptionists. Dark room 
technicians, piano tuners, and
 chair caning are disappearing too.

 I think without more of a move to have accessible software, we 
are going to be left behind.
 Every job ad tells me I need skills in database management. How 
can we compete with inaccessible databases? Not even MS Access is 
accessible!

 As to conservatism, indeed it’s a conservative group. I knew 
this the second meeting I went to 15 years back. Much of the self 
empowerment message spoken about at the virginia state convention 
is conservative. Yes, it is like yeah everyone can be successful 
in whatever they want. If you cannot get your dreams, you need to 
have more skills or more confidence; just as conservatives like 
rush Limboull say get up and out there, the NFB says if you 
cannot succeed its your fault. As Joe pointed out, I no longer 
can follow this. I have skills and a college degree, yet I cannot 
possibly meet all job qualifications because of visual barriers. 
Another example is many communications jobs I want require adobe 
creative suite use. I cannot use adobe photoshop or adobe end 
design. Never will happen, even if I improve my computer skills; 
some things just cannot be done with a screen reader. I could use 
other text based databases if they were accessible though; such 
as raisers edge, donor perfect, CRM, and SalesForce.

 I do like the can do attitude of NFB leaders, but out in the 
real world, having the blindness skills simply is no longer 
enough to suceed.

 Ashley

 -----Original Message----- From: melissa R Green
 Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 6:45 PM
 To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
 Subject: Re: [nabs-l] NFB and conservatism/liberalism

 I like the dual aproach as well.  I have stated this before, and 
I don't
 have a concrete answer.  I think that we need to also continue 
to focus on
 the employment of blind people more than we have done.  I was 
very glad that
 the job fair was occurring at convention again, and that there 
was a job
 fair at washington seminar.  In my opinion, this is a more 
balanced aproach
 to assisting blind people in becoming successful.  Have a 
blessed day.
 Best Wishes
 Melissa R. Green and Pj

 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arielle Silverman" 
<arielle71 at gmail.com
 To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
 <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
 Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 3:12 PM
 Subject: [nabs-l] NFB and conservatism/liberalism


 I had not thought much about the political tone of NFB 
philosophy
 itself. While there is definitely a conservative "pull yourself 
up"
 mentality especially in older NFB discourse, the NFB has also
 historically fought to expand government assistance for the 
blind
 including social security. Most would contend that is a more 
liberal
 position. Also, in the eleven years I've been an NFB member, 
I've
 picked up on an increasing shift toward universal design and
 pressuring others to make environments accessible to the blind 
in
 addition to encouraging blind people to adapt to their 
environments.
 In fact I think most of the Washington Seminar priorities in 
recent
 years have had something to do with making things accessible. I 
think
 the NFB is starting to recognize that integration comes from a 
dual
 approach of empowering blind people while also making 
environments
 more hospitable for us.

 Also, I don't think saying the NFB expects blind people to rely 
on
 themselves without anybody's help is quite accurate. If you read 
the
 old Kernel stories and banquet speeches, Federation leaders 
often
 stress how much other NFB members helped them get to where they 
are
 today. One might argue that the NFB tends to minimize outsider
 (sighted) help, but I think there is a great emphasis on 
reaching out
 to other blind people for help.

 Arielle

 On 4/2/14, justin williams <justin.williams2 at gmail.com> wrote:
 The boot strap theory is one I had not heard of in reference to 
the nfb.
 Great point Ashley.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: nabs-l [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
Ashley
 Bramlett
 Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 1:38 PM
 To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
 Subject: Re: [nabs-l] How can NFB better include
 peoplewithmultipledisabilities?

 Kaiti,
 The NFB is overall conservative. It is manefisted in state 
conventions
 too.

 Christianity is the dominant religion and therefore gets 
recognition.
 I hear conservative positions all the time. Its rooted in the 
philosophy
 too. The idea that we have to get out there and integrate into 
society on
 terms of equality and make a lot of money to support the 
organization is
 kind of conservative. I hear a lot about jobs. Don't rely on 
government;
 get
 a job.
 Well, while I do support self sufficiency, I do also recognize 
that you
 can
 be financially independent through other means with out the job.
 What about stay at home moms? What about those with family 
inherritances
 who
 don't need to work? What about those with medical issues which 
precludes a
 full work day? Well, its not so easy to get a job and frankly, 
Nfb is
 doing
 nothing to address the  software inaccessibility of common 
databases like
 raisers edge.
 The philosophy  is like the idea of pulling yourself up by your 
bootstraps
 with no outside help.
 So, if you have not realized this, the organization is 
conservative and
 ACB
 is more liberal. This does not bother me much as I was raised 
with these
 values, but as more young people come into NFB, it may bother 
them. Things
 may change soon.

 That is sad about the LGBT social group being quashed.
 I am not one for gay marriage, but see no harm in a social 
group. hope
 this
 does not happen again.

 Also, I agree with posts that say we need to work more  with 
other
 disability groups.

 Ashley

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Kaiti Shelton
 Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:30 PM
 To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
 Subject: Re: [nabs-l] How can NFB better include
 peoplewithmultipledisabilities?

 Hello all,

 In answer to Carly's question about connections between the 
blind, (we may
 call them "just blind" for the purposes of this conversation), 
and those
 with blindness and other disabilities, or other disabilities 
without
 blindness, I think organizational relationships are the starting 
point to
 working interpersonally.  Much like the NFB is a huge group of 
blind
 people,
 and is often used as a catalyst for working interpersonally to 
accomplish
 tasks, other groups are the same.  If we want to work 
interpersonally with
 the deaf, persay, then we need to go where the deaf are and 
start forming
 relationships with that group.  Once repore is established, 
people from
 the
 various organizations can work interpersonally.  Darian might 
have phrased
 it better than I did, but it's the same sort of view.

 I was admittedly not around for that episode that Desiree 
described, but
 I'm
 really sad to hear that it happened.  Especially since, as 
Arielle pointed
 out, there are some pretty out there groups like the car one.  I 
mean,
 it's
 okay for people to get together and discuss cars that we can't 
even drive
 (yet at least), so their discussion is purely based on 
mechanical and
 aesthetic knowledge of the cars rather than a personal user 
experience,
 but
 a support group for blind people who are seen as a minority for 
another
 reason is not okay?  To me, that just doesn't make sense.

 I'm not particularly religious, and probably would label myself 
as
 unitarian
 even though I was raised catholic if I had to label myself at 
all, so I
 realize my personal views on things of that nature are more 
liberal than
 the
 views of others.  However, conservatives aren't always going to 
be happy,
 just as liberals aren't, and it is important that we compromise.  
I was
 not
 under the impression that the NFB had any religious affiliation, 
and even
 remember asking someone what Invocation was, because I really 
didn't know
 the term.  Even in this light, why is Christianity made such a 
prevalent
 part of convention?
 What about those who practice Islam, Judism, or anything else?  
I would
 hate
 for a majority faction within the NFB to shun double minority 
members,
 because after all, we're all minorities in the greater world, so 
to
 pretend
 that those who are different from us are less valuable or don't 
deserve
 the
 right to organize a group to suit their unique set of needs or
 circumstances
 doesn't seem right.
 Sorry for the rant.

 On 4/1/14, melissa R Green <lissa1531 at gmail.com> wrote:
 Arielle once again.  You are so right!  I also hope that will 
never
 happen again.
 Another way to look at this is, many devisions get started and 
then
 they just fall by the waist side.  Noone will keep it going.  
IMO the
 devisions are started by people that have to be in the spotlight 
and
 be the darling of

 the Federation and the devision suffers.  The same happens with
 chapters and

 state devisions.  Then everyone is shaking their head and 
wondering
 what happened and why this person didn't work out.  I could give
 examples of backing the wrong person.
 Finally, I always felt badly for those children who were born 
and grew
 up in

 the federation.  They have a lot of pressure on them to be the 
darling
 of the federation.  Have a blessed day.
 Best Wishes
 Melissa R. Green and Pj

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com
 To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
 <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
 Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 5:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [nabs-l] How can NFB better include people
 withmultipledisabilities?


 I too was at the NFB convention when the LGBT group wasn't able 
to
 announce its meetings. I'm disappointed this happened, 
especially the
 symbolic exclusion it represented, and hope never to see 
something
 like that again as long as I am part of the Federation. I 
completely
 understand the leadership's desire not to have a division for 
every
 special interest. However, we need clearer and more evenhanded
 criteria about what should constitute a division. It doesn't 
make
 sense to allow a division for car enthusiasts with its own 
annual
 activities and then not even allow an LGBT group to advertise 
informal
 meet-ups. We can't try to say we don't want LGBT because it's 
too
 politically controversial and then have religious invocations at 
all
 the general sessions. Has the general membership ever even been 
polled
 about whether to keep having these religious invocations? In 
other
 words, unless we want to be in an organization that reflects the
 president's or the board's interests and political views alone, 
we
 really need to have some transparency about how divisions are 
formed
 and what kinds of characteristics are meaningful enough to 
justify
 forming a division. Furthermore, as Darian pointed out, a 
well-run
 group can probably be just as effective without a lot of the 
hassle
 associated with keeping up a division. I know at least some of 
the
 folks in the LGBT group would have been totally happy with just 
a
 group, not a full division, but even that wasn't supported.

 Arielle

 On 4/1/14, melissa R Green <lissa1531 at gmail.com> wrote:
 what a good topic.  I know that there is a blind rollers list.  
But
 the devision never came into being.  I think that the committee 
of
 the under served is supposed to address these issues.  However 
this
 is not occurring.

 I agree that nfb has a primary focus of blindness.  Yet, we are 
a
 diverse population.  So I believe that the nfb needs to become 
more
 diverse.  I also

 believe that the leadership are going by their assumptions that 
if
 they have

 a devision dedicated to a certain grou that it will not do 
anything
 to assist blind people.  For example, years ago, a group came
 together and wanted to form a devision for blind gay bisexual 
and
 transgendered people.
 I was at the convention when doctor Maurer was reading the
 announcement and

 then he ripped it up in the middle of reading it.  Many people 
left
 the federation because they felt that they were not wanted and 
that
 the leadership assumed that it would be a devision strictly for
 social purposes.

 Many people are hopeful that the new president will bring many 
more
 changes

 and lots of diversity to the federation.  I am going to wait and 
see
 what happens.
 Have a blessed day.
 Best Wishes
 Melissa R. Green and Pj

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com
 To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
 <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
 Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:53 PM
 Subject: [nabs-l] How can NFB better include people with
 multipledisabilities?


 Hi all,

 I'd like to start a separate thread to address an important 
issue
 that's come up recently. It's clear that more and more blind 
folks
 today also have other disabilities. For several reasons, the 
number
 of blind people with additional disabilities is likely to 
increase,
 and more than that, the number of blind people with additional
 disabilities who are getting educated and involved in advocacy 
is
 likely to increase. I do think that, for the most part, the NFB
 centers do a good job of tailoring training to the needs that 
people
 with other disabilities may have, but I also think that we as an
 organization have far to go in order to truly appreciate the
 contributions of all blind people. I think it's particularly 
true
 when we think about including people with intellectual 
disabilities
 and mental illnesses. These kinds of conditions are stigmatized 
in
 general, but especially since our leadership has tended to be 
highly
 educated and to stress academic excellence and consistent effort 
from
 the leadership, I can see how folks who have intellectual
 disabilities, mental illnesses or chronic health conditions can 
feel
 left out. I've known some blind folks who had trouble holding 
down
 leadership positions in the NFB due to the ups and downs of 
mental
 illnesses, for example, but who are still incredibly creative 
and
 passionate people with a lot of good ideas that are getting 
lost.
 Further, as several folks have pointed out, people with multiple
 disabilities can experience difficulties related to getting
 employment, education, etc. that the NFB hasn't really been able 
to
 help them with.
 I agree that NFB can't be expert about all disabilities, just
 blindness, but I think there is a definite place for more 
divisions
 and groups within the NFB that focus on other conditions. There 
is a
 deaf-blind division, but I have not heard many great things 
about its
 effectiveness. I have heard about efforts to possibly start a
 blind-rollers division, and it makes sense to me that blind
 wheelchair users might have unique concerns they'd want to 
discuss
 with each other. But to my knowledge such a division has not 
been
 formed. I would love to see a division for blind people with 
mental
 health conditions. This is a huge segment of our population, and
 there are probably unique concerns there. I am not sure if such
 divisions don't exist because the national leadership opposes 
them or
 if there just hasn't been enough interest or momentum to get 
them
 going. But I think having such divisions could help folks who 
have
 additional disabilities obtain leadership positions within the
 organization, and also to provide a vehicle for collective 
action and
 education about issues affecting these groups specifically, even 
if
 the NFB as a whole should just focus on blindness. I hope that 
makes
 sense. I would be interested in other suggestions from you about 
how
 members with multiple disabilities can feel more valued. While 
there
 is something to be said for going ahead and running for 
leadership
 positions in order to change things, change also needs to come 
from
 the organization as a whole if folks with multiple disabilities 
are
 going to be elected and welcomed in these positions.

 Best,
 Arielle

 On 3/31/14, Steve Jacobson <steve.jacobson at visi.com> wrote:
 Joe and others,

 It is not my position that anything said about the NFB that is
 negative is wrong.  Organizations are made up of human beings 
and we
 are not perfect so our creations are not likely going

 to
 be perfect.  Still, some of what one person may seem as wrong  
isn't
 so much a matter of right or wrong as perspective and opinion.  
We
 embarked a good while back now on an expansion that has resulted 
in
 the need to raise more funds than we used to have to raise.  I 
do
 not think I am alone among NFB supporters in recognizing that 
this
 is a risk.  When you look at our budget and that of the ACB and 
then
 compare legislative successes as you did, Joe, it is certainly 
clear
 that legislative successes are not proportional to one's budget.
 Whether I completely agree with legislation ACB passes or not, I
 recognize that the ACB has made contributions.  However, I have 
felt
 for some time and I feel particularly more so now that our 
problems
 can't be solved by legislation alone.  Let's take accessibility, 
for
 example.  There is a lot of emphasis on getting more legislation
 passed that will force software to be accessible, for example.  
I
 happen to believe this is necessary, but it isn't going to make
 everything better for us, particularly on the job, all by 
itself.
 If we are going to make any serious gains, we need to understand 
the
 limits of current technology and explore ways of getting 
information
 that is new.  I am not one who got all excited about being able 
to
 drive a car, although I certainly hope that blind people can do 
that
 at some point.  However, I got very excited about the fact that 
as a
 result of looking at the problem, we experimented with a number 
of
 ways of getting information that had not been explored before.  
A
 significant portion of our budget went into the KNFB reader.  At 
the
 time, it was something nobody was doing, and it was a moving
 experience when I held up a KNFB reader to the lists of 
registered
 people at a national convention that were just hanging from a
 crossbar and have it start to read the content.  There have 
probably
 been over a thousand kids who have attended science camps of one
 kind or another through our efforts.  We have been able to 
sponsor
 other gatherings as well for blind lawyers, teachers, and major
 players in the technology field.  We couldn't have done any of 
this
 in the 80's or 90's, and much of this would not have been done 
even
 now if we hadn't tried it.

 So what's my point, I'm not saying anything new, you know all 
this.
 My point is that a lot of this is about risks and perspectives.  
We
 won't know for a long time if some of these efforts will make a
 difference.  Frankly, I am a believer that one learns almost as 
much
 from what doesn't work as one learns from what does, because if 
you
 make a mistake you can eliminate or refine that approach.  Will 
some
 of those thousand kids get into math or science because of what 
we
 did?  Is the OCR in the new HIMS product a little better because 
of
 what we did with the KNFB reader?  Will we see a really good 
reader
 on the iPhone?  Might we ever see a reader that could use 
artificial
 intelligence to interpret software on a computer screen instead 
of
 having

 to
 educate every person who writes
 software?  Will some of our efforts mean that there might be a 
way
 for us

 to
 control the Google self-driving cars because of some of the work 
we
 did on our own car?  I hope that at least some of the answers 
are
 yes, but at this point I can't really say.  What I do know is 
that
 the smaller dynamic grass roots organization that we were in the
 80's couldn't have had any affect on some of what I've listed 
above,
 nor was it the right time for that.  But it also means that we
 change.  Not only do we change, but we make mistakes as we 
adjust to
 change.  Joe, what you see as a downward spiral, I see as the
 challenges of change.  I'm not satisfied to say that it has to 
be
 that way, though.  We can and must learn how to do better, as
 individuals and as an organization.

 Joe, I think you are right that getting training at one of our
 centers won't miraculously make life better, and the marketing 
does
 sometimes imply that.  However, you are wrong to draw 
conclusions
 about such training based upon the marketing.  Discussing and
 exploring the uncertainties and challenges of seeking employment 
as
 a blind person is a big part of what is addressed at BLIND
 Incorporated here in Minnesota and I assume by our other 
centers.
 Some of the point of such training is to encourage the idea that 
you
 have to have a set of tools to approach a given situation and 
not
 just one tool.  Still, we have to do more than run people 
through
 training.
 This is true of any single aspectof our challenges, though.
 Legislating that software must be accessible and that one cannot
 discriminate based upon a disability was and is still needed, 
but it
 won't matter much if we don't have training.  Legislation and 
even
 training won't matter all that much if we don't get a good basic
 education.
 Requiring that school districts teach braille won't fix that 
problem
 if there are no braille instructors in a given area.  You can't 
pick
 any one thing out and say that it can lead to success by itself, 
and
 you can't see any given issue as completely standing on its own.

 I feel that we are in a better position as an organization to 
impact
 the complex challenges we face with a larger budget than we 
were.
 However, it is more important than ever that we understand where 
we
 are going and how our philosophy fits in.  The question of what 
can
 we change to address the challenges of the world and what do we 
need
 the world to change is more important than ever, and I don't see
 anyone asking questions like that outside of this organization.
 With our strengths and our failings, I think our understanding 
of
 asking for help and looking for our own solutions is what has 
set us
 apart in my mind, and while it is risky, I think that branching 
out
 is a risk worth taking to try to have a wider impact.  We need 
the
 help of all members, though, to handle change.

 Best regards,

 Steve Jacobson



 On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:57:22 -0600, Jamie Principato wrote:

 Arielle,
 That was a very thoughtful and politically sensitive response.

 Joe,
 I am pleased to see I am not alone in making these observations
 furring  my  own relationship with the NFB. while I
 deeply respect the organization's history and truly appreciate 
the
 raw potential the organization has moving forward, the passion I
 joined with back in high school has turned to cautious cynicism. 
I
 don't think this perspective is bad, though. I think the NFB
 desperately needs members who can see past the smoke and mirrors 
of
 PR, and who are willing to discuss issues of blindness and 
politics
 in a no-nonsense way that isn't always easy to hear. It is a 
shame
 though when those of us less willing to toe the line and pander 
to
 those with political power are treated with hostility by some at 
the
 national level, and more still within our local chapters