[Nfb-editors] In terms of addressing and questioning NFB policies

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

I think most of us agree change can be good, and growth is essential for
any organization to survive.

I understand why the Federation opposes members speaking against
policies and procedures set by the organization in public forums.

While I may question this opposition in as far as politics and freedom
of speech is concerned, as a Federationist, I understand the necessity
to stand as a united front.

We all have the opportunity to engage our leadership in conversation,
and these discussions allow us an outlet to express concerns, voice
questions and inform ourselves on NFB reasoning.  After all, during each
convention, Dr. Mauer makes himself available at certain times for
anyone to speak with him.

I also feel certain email list-- not all-- can be forums for these
discussions to exist as well.  Many of our leadership have a presence on
these list, and they may be able to provide information and
explanations.  And discussion among our peers creates a democratic
environment as well in which to learn and grow.

I ask a question purely out of curiosity so please do not read more into
this.  What is the concern with members voicing questions or problems
with NFB policy outside the organization?  I often hear the argument
comparing the NFB to Democrats and Republicans, and how we can not be
both-- we must choose one.  True, however, individuals in the Democratic
and Republican parties are allowed to speak against happenings within
their own party, and this is done without censure.  I have read our NFB
Constitution and know the policy and consequences for such behavior, but
I am curious as to why we established this.

Again, I see the wisdom in being unified, and realize we have a
philosophy and foundation to preserve, but is speaking against some
actions deemed more harmful than others?

For instance, if a member opposes a lawsuit the NFB has taken on-- for
sake of this discussion, let's say the lawsuit against the universities
using non-accessible technology.  (By the way, I am fully on board with
this).  If one of us raises vocal questions about this, even though it
is a NFB decision, how exactly is it detrimental to the organization?

Or if someone finds fault with our Braille legislation, again, should
they vocalize their concerns, how does this affect the organization as a
whole?

Are we worried one opposition may lead others to form the same opinion?
Is there fear of internal damage to the organization?

Again, I bring this up out of curiosity as well as to better understand
our policies.

Bridgit