[Nfb-editors] Seeking diversity

[Mike Freeman]

Bridgit:

C'mon now; you can't bring a topic up and then when it's discussed at length
and with some passion yell "poor me!"!  If you dish it out, you oughtta be
able to take it, too.  I don't recall anyone here saying or implying that
you aren't allowed to have your opinion nor have we said you shouldn't
express it.  We *have* argued with you and I, at least, will continue to do
so.  If I didn't think you were a good Federationist and had creative ideas
to contribute, I wouldn't bother to argue with you.

You ask whether specifying that a majority of the voting membership must be
blind is not counterproductive.  Frankly, although I admire your idealism
and admit that at a superficial level, your argument that it is makes sense,
if you ponder a bit, I believe you'll come to appreciate the absurdity of
the assertion.  Let's assume that somehow we do a great deal of outreach
and, contrary to expectation, a great influx of non-NFB members joins the
organization.  Let us further assume that they think the Federation Pledge
is just so much hot air.  Finally, let us assume that these new sighted
members form a majority of a chapter or state affiliate.  What is to prevent
this new majority from suddenly deciding that NFB policies are so much
poppycock and vote to change the policies.  For example, what's to prevent a
majority vote to change NFB's stand against most of the gadgetry used in
Extreme Home Make-over?  WE cannot assume that NFB membership automatically
results in enlightenment.  Hence, there's good reason for NFB's membership
requirements.  Withoutthem, there's no guarantee that NFB policies will
remain under the control of NFB blind members.

As I say, you are idealistic and I suspect that you cannot envision people
not immediately seeing the sense to our philosophy.  But I assure you that
there are plenty of well-meaning people who don't "get it".  Were this not
so, our goals would have been met long ago.

We keep working, though.  And I am sincerely honored to have you as a
colleague in the Movement and I value your opportunity to express yourself
just as I value my opportunity to argue with you.

Mike Freeman


-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-editors-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-editors-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Bridgit Pollpeter
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:12 PM
To: nfb-editors at nfbnet.org; sandy Alvarado
Cc: Ross Pollpeter
Subject: [Nfb-editors] Seeking diversity

I bring this up simply for discussion, so please do not jump all over
me.

We must maintain Federation standards, and ensure in all things, we, the
blind, are leading the way.  We can not revert back to the days when
non-blind people and entities made decisions.

We can still retain a general rule that national, state and
chapter/division boards have blind officers, but do we not risk a
reverse prejudice by insisting we can only have a certain percentage of
non-blind members?

And, should this ever happen, I would find it a sad state of affairs
that fewer blind people were interested in changing what it means to be
blind.

Does not stipulating a percentage of sighted members make us an elitist
organization?

Again, for discussions sake, I fail to see how limiting a population in
our organization helps us?  Do ethnic groups only allow a certain
percentage of non-ethnic members?  Maybe some, but to me, this sounds
absurd.

Theoretically, I understand the reasoning for initially drafting this
into our constitution, but it certainly will not help us draw members
in.

We say we are striving for equality, but we only allow a certain
percentage of non-blind members?  Does this technicality really help
change what it means to be blind?  Does not drawing membership-- blind
or sighted-- in and creating more Federationist help further our cause?

If we fear sighted representation, then our blind leaders need to step
up.

I am sure I have ruffled feathers, and many of you are ready to barr me
from the Federation.  I am probably blacklisted already anyway.

I am merely giving you food for thought.  Change is essential for
growth.  Not changing our core, what we stand for, what our foundation
was built upon, but changing our methods and maybe opening our own
minds.

Again, because apparently on this list I must spell everything out, I
present this for discussion, nothing more.  God forbid Federationist are
not cookie-cutter products who can not offer an opinion.

Bridgit

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:40:01 -0400
From: "Barbara Pierce" <bpierce at oberlin.net>
To: <newmanrl at cox.net>,	"'Correspondence Committee Mailing List'"
	<nfb-editors at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Nfb-editors] [NFB-editors] [NFB-editors] Seeking
	diversity
Message-ID: <251208D7FF31467487D4E8C4EA5828E5 at bpierce>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

In the past chapters frequently had what they called associate members.
This allowed them to pull in sighted people with an interest in
blindness but not threaten the chapter's majority blind requirement. My
chapter, for example, has a lot of sighted people because sighted
spouses are welcomed, but we always have to be careful to keep the 51
percent level of blind people. That is the only concern I would have
with the dream of wider involvement of sighted people in the chapter.

Barbara


_______________________________________________
Nfb-editors mailing list
Nfb-editors at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfb-editors:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.c
om