[nagdu] a Straw Argument: Freedom of choice?

Tue Aug 25 21:40:55 UTC 2015

Marian,  agree with regards to Sandra's story. OMG, that the GDB
representative would publicly state that at convention and then,
totally back out one-on-one over the phone! I wonder if Mike was
dismissed for allowing your voice to be heard? I think tina meant that
it was her choice to vote either way on the resolution.

On 8/25/15, Sherry Gomes via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> I wonder why the schools that don't give ownership immediately seem to
> think
> that a blind person is more likely to abuse, neglect or misuse a dog than a
> sighted person who goes down to the humane society, fills out a few papers
> and walks off with a new pet. T me, that's what conditional ownership
> implies. We don't trust you to take care of your dog in the best way, so
> we're going to withhold ownership until we decide you are worthy. And yes,
> I
> have gotten all my dogs from GDB, so I attend a school with conditional
> ownership. and I don't like it. I have other reasons for going to GDB, but
> I
> don't like their ownership policy and have been trying to get on their
> alumni board, specifically so I can try to argue for a policy change. Not
> that I really think it will do any good.
>
> Sherry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hingson
> via nagdu
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:06 PM
> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
> Cc: Michael Hingson; 'Tina Thomas'
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] a Straw Argument: Freedom of choice?
>
> Actually Tina,
>
> There is more than one school in each of those countries. However, people
> from both of those lands have traveled to the U.S. as well as other
> countries to get their guide dogs.
>
> The freedom of choice issue notwithstanding the schools offering
> conditional
> ownership and/or no ownership continue to hold in one form or another to
> old
> ideas of guide dog ownership and the "obligations" of the schools. You are
> right that they don't get on board, but that is because they don't want to
> and often this is because they do not value blind people the way we do.
> While they might deny this their arguments are the same ones we have heard
> many times before.
>
> Let's turn it around. You receive your guide dogs from a school that does
> and always has granted ownership right from the start. You see the value of
> this. Why are you not fighting harder to insure that all guide dog users
> who
> go to all guide dog schools here get the same opportunity? Isn't that what
> the fight for civil rights is all about?
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Michael Hingson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tina Thomas via
> nagdu
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:51 PM
> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Tina Thomas <judotina48kg at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] a Straw Argument: Freedom of choice?
>
> Marion- If my argument of freedom of choice is as thin as you make it out
> to
> be, then why haven't the schools who have conditional ownership got on
> board
> with you and others on this list way of thinking. Also, in the UK and South
> Korea there is only one guide dog school covering those respective
> countries
> and the consumer's residing there either adhere to the policies of those
> schools or they don't get a dog.
> Tina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
> via nagdu
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:55 AM
> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
> Cc: Marion Gwizdala
> Subject: [nagdu] a Straw Argument: Freedom of choice?
>
> Tina,
>
> 	I know you assert you voted against the resolution on the grounds of
> freedom of choice. I am confused, though, on what choice of the consumer is
> limited by affording unconditional ownership upon completion of training.
> Is
> it the choice to be protected from unwarranted interference by the training
> program? Is it the choice to have the dog removed arbitrarily and without
> cause? Is it the choice to be fearful that the program might get a call
> from
> someone who decides to retaliate against and individual by filing a false
> report of abuse? Is it the choice of being hesitant to contact the training
> program to seek assistance on a behavioral or safety issue because the
> program may think the user is incompetent and might take the dog away from
> them? Can you please explain what freedom is impinged upon by transferring
> unconditional ownership upon completion of training? Asserting that
> ownership denies guide dog users freedom of choice seems illogical to me!
>
> 	I am of the opinion that providing ownership upon completion of
> training does not compromise this freedom of choice; rather, it enhances
> it.
> Let me give you a specific example from the agreement I have with the guide
> dog training program from which I received Sergeant. I guess I am a bit at
> fault for not reading the agreement more closely; however, within the
> agreement, it states that I will not let anyone else use my guide dog. I
> suppose writing this message could compromise my relationship with GDF, but
> I am confident in my ability to make choices about what is best for my
> guide
> dog and what are acceptable practices.
>
> 	As many of you know, my wife, merry, is an experienced guide dog
> user who is now between guide dogs. Last week she attended a business
> function in an area in which she was unfamiliar. She asked me if she could
> use Sarge for the day and I had no problem with that. Now, if GDF wanted
> to,
> I guess they could say I breached their contract and take my dog away from
> me; however, I also feel that, in the spirit of ownership, I have the right
> to allow my wife to work my dog, if I wish.
>
> 	Now, I suppose it could be argued that the resolution limits freedom
> of choice by not giving consumers the option of owning their dog or not.
> If,
> as the training programs assert, there is no difference in the way one is
> treated or the services offered during and after the probationary period
> why
> do the programs still have such a paternalistic policy? The answer came
> from
> the representative of Leader dogs for the Blind during our panel
> discussion,
> and explanation that, like the assertion of freedom of choice, is a
> questionable explanation: The donors want it! Really? Are donors really
> conditioning their support of a training program on this policy or is it an
> explanation that sounds good but has no merit? I contend it is the latter.
> In fact, I would venture to guess that a vast majority of donors do not
> even
> know what Leader's ownership policy is, let alone make donation decisions
> based upon it!
> 	Asserting that the resolution limits freedom of choice is that it
> sounds good on the face of it but holds no water. Those programs that
> transfer ownership upon completion of training offer no fewer services than
> those who retain such ownership. Furthermore, those programs that transfer
> ownership after a probationary period do not offer any more limited
> services
> to their consumers once ownership is transferred than they do prior to the
> transfer. The major difference is that one voluntarily signs away their
> rights to the dog with which they will form an emotional bond, an
> investment
> that, in my opinion, is far greater than any the program has in the dog.
> Rather than the resolution limiting one's freedom of choice, it actually
> enhances that freedom by allowing blind people to choose what they feel is
> best for them and their dogs, rather than subjugating them to the custodial
> policies and practices of a training program that asserts they know what is
> best. How is such an assertion congruent with the philosophy of
> self-determination held by the National Federation of the blind?
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tina Thomas via
> nagdu
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:28 AM
> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
> Cc: Tina Thomas
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Cause for Concern was Naming names
>
> Hello Everyone- I want to reiterate that I voted no on the unconditional
> ownership resolution because of freedom of choice. As I've said, there are
> schools in this country that offer unconditional ownership and it is up to
> the consumer  to decide what program suits their needs the best. Now, I'll
> go back under my rock and work on cagdu business. *smile* Have an awesome
> day everyone! Oh and for those of us who are experiencing hot weather, stay
> cool and give you dogs water.
> Tina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
> via nagdu
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:46 AM
> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
> Cc: Marion Gwizdala
> Subject: [nagdu] Cause for Concern was Naming names
>
> Dear All,
>
> 	I think Susan's story is less about what happened 40 years ago and
> more about what could potentially happen now if guide dog training programs
> do not grant unconditional ownership upon completion of training. When I
> sat
> on Southeastern Guide dogs' Graduate Advisory Council, I was a lone voice
> advocating for ownership. Coincidentally, I was the only officially
> appointed consumer representative. Though most other members were
> affiliated
> with the ACB, none of them sat on the GAC as an official representative of
> that organization. Those affiliated with the ACB, especially one person,
> said "We don't want to hear NFB rhetoric in these meetings!" Mike Sergeant
> quickly intervened to say that my voice would be heard and asked some
> questions about my stand. I was eventually able to help others understand
> that my position was not a reflection of the current administration of
> SEGDI
> but a desire to create sound, long-term policies to protect consumers from
> interference should a less responsive administration be seated in the
> future. During the following meeting, the GAC proposed unconditional
> ownership upon completion of training.
>
>
> 	Only a few short years later, Mike Sergeant was dismissed and
> consumers voiced their dissatisfaction with the decision. We protested
> outside the gates of SEGDI and asked to be heard. SEGDI called the
> Sheriff's
> office to make us leave; however, we were on public property and could not
> be forced to disband. We have it on excellent authority that SEGDI
> videorecorded the protest and created a blacklist of those who expressed
> their dissatisfaction. I often wonder what might have happened if we had
> not
> been given ownership of our dogs.
>
> 	Though many opposed the resolution concerning ownership, I believe
> the opposition was less about the terms of the resolution and more about
> loyalty to those programs that do not grant such ownership. Some argue that
> the program must have a good reason for their policies, though the only
> reason we have been given is that their donors want it. With all due
> respect, I don't believe the donors have really weighed in on this nor that
> they have the understanding to make such a decision. Others contend it is
> in
> the best interest of the dog; however, those programs transferring
> ownership
> do have processes available to them to protect the dogs from abuse or
> neglect without reserving such power and influence over their consumers'
> lives.
>
> 	I believe the resolution will come up again and, when it does, it
> will pass. For the time, though, there are more important issues with which
> NAGDU is focused. Also, we will be more apt to make our membership aware of
> the instances in which training programs insert themselves without just
> cause. I do believe, though, there will always be those who will assert
> there must be a good reason and defend the paternalistic attitudes of the
> training programs.
>
> 	We would like the programs to comply with our requests for new
> policies and will continue to advocate for such policy changes. We will
> also
> continue to educate our members about how such policies are incongruent
> with
> our philosophy and overcome the objections raised. Lastly, we will continue
> to press those who have publicly stated they are willing to discuss these
> policies but privately tell us they have no interest in doing so. Such was
> the case when Christine Benninger, Executive Director of Guide Dogs for the
> Blind stated during our 2014 meeting she would discuss this with us. When I
> spoke with her on the telephone, she told me GDB had no desire to discuss
> this with us and no intention to change their policy. Such unprincipled
> behavior demonstrates lack of integrity and is cause for concern.
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Debby Phillips
> via nagdu
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:44 AM
> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users;
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> Cc: Debby Phillips
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Naming names
>
> Just a thought about names.  If I went to a great restaurant, but it was
> forty years ago, I probably wouldn't share the name, because 1.  the
> restaurant might not even be there.  2.  If the restaurant still exists, it
> might not be the same great place.
> So why would I share a bad experience with an instructor that I had forty
> years ago? I admit that I have done so, but hopefully not publicly as in
> email.  If I have, I apologize.  It's not fair
> to that person.    Debby and Nova
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/judotina48kg%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/judotina48kg%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/mike%40michaelhingson.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/sherriola%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/singingmywayin%40gmail.com
>

-- 
Danielle

Email: singingmywayin at gmail.com