[nagdu] NFB philosophy and guide dogs

[Julie McGinnity]

Hi all,

This is a spin-off of the guide dogs and training center discussion.
I want to give you my take on NFB philosophy and guide dogs-how it
intersects and why it has been problematic in the past.  Keep in mind
that I am only 25 years old, so some of you may think I'm crazy.  My
suppositions are based on research, the perspectives of friends, as
well as my own experiences.

When I joined the NFB five years ago, I was sold the first time I
walked into the convention hotel, and I never looked back.  The
speeches, the friends, and the progress all hooked me instantly.  But
it was NAGDU that encouraged me the most to join.  Here was a group of
people who were guide dog users, who knew their rights, and were proud
of it.  I am embarrassed to say that until I joined, I knew little
more than the basics of ADA not to mention the other laws that pertain
to guide dog use.

I have never thought that NFB philosophy contradicted the use of a
guide dog.  Federationists believe that it is ok to be blind.  Low
expectations, misconceptions, and negative attitudes of the blind are
what hold us back.  Now our tagline states that we can live the lives
we want.

These words are presented in a number of contexts.  At their core
they embody how we choose to live as people who just happen to be
blind.  Part of living the lives we want is working with a guide dog,
and part of dealing with the misconceptions and negative attitudes of
the public is knowing our rights and standing firmly to uphold the
law.  We have earned the right to work with our dogs, so we must also
shoulder the responsibility of combatting the public's attitudes,
disrespect, and disobedience of the law.  In other words, we do not
let these things hold us back.

Let's look at another angle.  If we consider society's attitudes
towards guide dogs more closely, we may find some misconceptions that
are transfered from them to us (the blind).  How about the idea that
our dogs know where everything is and can simply take us there without
any navigation necessary on our part?  That relates to the idea that
our dogs take care of us.  How about the teachers and parents who
strongly encourage their young blind people to get a guide dog as soon
as possible?  Maybe that happens less now than it used to, but I still
hear about it.  It is as if the guide dog is the magical solution that
will solve that pesky blindness problem and normalize us.

The most damning concept that contradicts the views many
federationists hold about blindness link the guide dog to
independence.  Guide dog schools, the public, and as a result the
blind tend to believe that guide dog users are more independent.  But
think about what I wrote above.  The blind are not more independent by
our own merit; no, the independence came to us upon transference of
that leash.  That dog by our side gives us the independence we
couldn't find anywhere else.  And that is the misconception that
directly opposes NFB philosophy.  The claim that our dogs are our
independence, make it ok for us to be blind, or are in any other way
elivated from the status of a tool (albeit a living, beloved tool)
damages the public's as well as our own perception of the blind.

NFB philosophy does not mention one single tool or one narrow method
for living the lives we want.  But it does refer to societal attitudes
obstructing our paths.  Perhaps those attitudes have effected us as
well both personally and as an organization.  I think we should
examine them and prepare ourselves to deal with these issues if we
truly wish to experience the full use of our guide dogs at training
centers.


-- 
Julie McGinnity
National Federation of the Blind of Missouri second vice president,
National Federation of the Blind performing arts division secretary,
Missouri Association of Guide dog Users President
graduate, Guiding Eyes for the Blind 2008, 2014
"For we walk by faith, not by sight"
2 Cor. 7