[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