[nagdu] NFB philosophy and guide dogs

Raven Tolliver ravend729 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 3 23:24:30 UTC 2015


This explains everything. It would make sense as to why some NFB
members and the training centers look down on guide dog travelers, or
at least look down on using a guide dog as a mobility aid. The
training centers are in place to help blind people become more
independent. If independence means relying solely on your own
faculties, or acting based on your own judgment according to NFB
philosophy, then the higher ups don't believe using a guide dog
provides independence, and they view guide dog travelers as people who
are not independent. It makes perfect sense.
They ban the use of guide dogs during classes because guide dogs
prohibit independence as they envision it. You can't teach a person
depending on a guide to be independent. So of course using a guide dog
is a fundamentally altering practice.

Here are my issues with this view in relation to the law:
1. This is a false technicality. Technically, I'm not lying because I
didn't skew the facts, I simply left out some details. Technically,
I'm not blind because I can still read print, see color, and make out
shapes and images for the most part. Technically, it's all-natural
because it's made with synthetic ingredients created by combining
natural substances. Technically, you didn't wash the clothes because
you put them in a washing machine to clean them.
Come on. This is like banning MiniGuides and talking GPS units and
applications because people who use those to aid in travel are not
being independent. Technically. And maybe the NFB centers actually ban
those technologies. I wouldn't know.
2. The fundamental beliefs about independence are discriminatory by nature.
By default, the beliefs and practices view a certain kind of people
and their lifestyle choice as inferior--less independent. Somebody
already pointed that out.
3. The fundamental alteration clause in the ADA is faulty.
The way fundamental alteration works, or is applied in this situation,
I can establish a university and ban service animals because students
and professors should have a learning environment free of distraction,
and the animals are distracting in class. Seems I could ban service
animals just as schools and places of employment across the nation
have banned certain types of dress, handheld devices, etc.

Before policy is even changed, we have to change how these folks
define independence. And the ADA needs revision. Oh, boy!
-- 
Raven
Founder of 1AM Editing & Research
www.1am-editing.com

You are valuable because of your potential, not because of what you
have or what you do.

Naturally-reared guide dogs
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/nrguidedogs

On 9/3/15, Julie McGinnity via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ravend729%40gmail.com
>




More information about the NAGDU mailing list