[Nfb-editors] Seeking diversity

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

Mike,

First, I am not one to back off from an argument, I was truly bringing
up an idea for discussion.  Yes, I have qualms about stipulating a
majority, however, I understand the reasoning, and I am not necessarily
against it.  I was opening this up for discussions sake mostly.

Also, Barbara and yourself interpreted my comments to mean I had
suggested we concentrate Federation efforts towards goals and causes not
directly related to blindness, and this was not what I meant at all.  In
a nutshell, I called for more Federation members.

Having said that, here is my opinion on the matter.

You say, on further speculation, that should we gain a large non-blind
membership, what would stop this new majority from changing our goals?
You suggest that this new majority-- who would be Federationist-- may
prevent current policies from continueing to develop, and they may vote
to change these policies.  Or they may support efforts like certain
anti-Federation gagetry installed in homes to make them "safe" or
accessible for the blind.

First, wouldn't these members join the Federation because they believed
in our mission?  And wouldn't we accept the membership of people who
wanted to work alongside us?  Your argument sounds as if sighted people
are against Federation concepts and policies.

We currently have non-blind members, and they believe in our cause and
work to further this cause.  Some are even leaders.

Anyone joining the ranks of the NFB usually do so because something
about the organization resonates with them.  Why do you assume sighted
people would join only to change the organization.

And what stops a majority of blind people from making the same choices?
We could have a majority of our blind membership decide to vote to
change policies.  Not all Federationist who are blind believe and follow
the philosophy of the NFB.  In my experience, many are duel members.  So
what stops us now from experiencing these changes?

We have a strong leadership which guides us and sets the atmosphere, but
this would be the same leadership with any members-- blind or sighted.
So the only difference I see in your argument is that blind
Federationist are on the same page, and sighted Federationist would only
want to control us and change the heart of the NFB.  I wonder how our
current sighted members would feel about this?

Enlightenment on a strong philosophy of blindness does not automatically
come because you are blind, nor does being sighted mean you can not
comprehend this.

Trust me, I am "out there" on a daily basis, I know how many
well-intentioned people there are who don't "get it."  I am not naïve
enough or stupid enough to think all-- or most-- non-blind people truly
can accept our philosophy, but on the flip side of the coin, far too
many blind people fit in this category too.  Even some who consider
themselves Federationist.

And as for our goals not being met...  Certainly we have met barrier
after barrier because the sighted world refuses to believe and trust in
our abilities.  Again, I deal with this on a daily basis, but we can't
forget that we are our own worse enemy at times.  How many blind people
refuse to get on board too?  I am sorry to say this, but half of my
chapter still does not accept much of our philosophy.  I know way too
many blind people who equally do not "get it."

I respect you too.  I am glad we can express our opinions and debate
them while still understanding we are working towards a common goal.

Bridgit

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:55:35 -0700
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'Correspondence Committee Mailing List'" <nfb-editors at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Nfb-editors] Seeking diversity
Message-ID: <005c01cbe5c7$f9d130c0$ed739240$@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

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