[nagdu] a Straw Argument: Freedom of choice?

Marion Gwizdala blind411 at verizon.net
Tue Aug 25 22:57:41 UTC 2015


Danielle,

	I'm not sure what you meant by Mike being dismissed for letting my
voice be heard. As for Tina's intention, I believe she means that ownership
or custody gives consumers a choice. This is the argument I have difficulty
understanding. I believe the vast majority of consumers go into the process
with no understanding of the ramifications of ownership vs. custody, that
there is really a choice, and, therefore, without informed consent. Whenever
I offer an example of how programs arbitrarily interfere with a consumer's
use of the dog, I hear the same excuse: "Well, they must have a reason!" no,
they do not need a reason! That is why ownership is important and this is
why the programs really do not want to transfer ownership! With ownership
they would need to demonstrate a reason. With custody, they are left to
their own arbitrary measures. 

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala


-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Danielle Ledet
via nagdu
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:41 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Cc: Danielle Ledet
Subject: Re: [nagdu] a Straw Argument: Freedom of choice?

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%40gmai
> l.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%40gmai
> l.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%40michaelhings
> on.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.c
> om
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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%40gm
> ail.com
>


--
Danielle

Email: singingmywayin at gmail.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





More information about the NAGDU mailing list