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

[Mike Freeman]

Bridgit:

You've written a very thoughtful message with questions that deserve
thoughtful answers.  Gary wunder has given you an excellent response;
herewith find mine.

You write:  " 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."

Actually, the whole notion of "free speech" is often distorted,
misrepresented and misconstrued.  Dr. Jernigan used to point out that,
strictly-speaking, guaranteed free speech refers to what *government* can
and cannot do, not to what private entities can and cannot do.
Organizations restrict the right of unfettered speech of those who choose to
join them all the time.  Lest you doubt this, you need look no further than
churches, associations such as the Masons with secret rituals and signs and
a plethora of other organizations.  And, as Steve Jacobson points out, the
Federation doesn't force anyone who disagrees with its policies and wishes
to do so publicly to join its affiliates.  We all volunteer to curb our
tongues in the service of a greater good.

You write:  "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 agree completely.  Nevertheless, it is well to remember that the Internet
is worldwide and that anything said on lists that are archived (as most of
NFB's lists are) can be read by *anyone* *anywhere,* be he/she favorably
disposed to NFB or not.  That's why you don't always see blow-by-blow
descriptions and accounts of Federation strategy concerning our legislative,
legal or publicity initiatives until they are far enough along that those
who would thwart us cannot make use of "inside information".  In view of the
open, worldwide impact of the Internet, therefore, it seems to me that we
owe the Federation the courtesy of expressing ourselves cogently and freely
but also judiciously.  Use of loaded phraseology and inflammatory rhetoric
just eggs those on who would do us ill.

Having said this, though, I think that sober-minded, rational discussion of
why we do what we do to be extremely healthy.  If our policies and practices
can't stand the light of reason, they will fall of their own irrational
weight.

You write:  " 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."

There are two reasons why we of NFB adopted this policy.  First, unlike the
American Council of the Blind (ACB), we view ourselves as one movement --
national office, state affiliates, local chapters and NFB divisions are, in
essence, one entity that has been split for administrative purposes and to
deal with interest-specific or locale-specific matters.  But in terms of
policies, we are all one entity and speak with one voice.  Therefore, when
we promise a politician or governmental entity that we will back or oppose
something, we can back this promise up with action and know we mean what we
say.  More importantly, those with whom we deal know it, too.

The American Council of the Blind, on the other hand, views itself as a
confederacy:  its national office, state affiliates, local chapters and
special-interest affiliates (the ACB equivalent of our divisions) consider
themselves part of a loose confederacy which has banded together for
convenience but which cannot enforce unified policies or positions.  Neither
can elements of this confederacy insist that its members conform in public
to its policies.  Thus, for example, ACB nationally tends to be pro-NAC
whereas the Washington Council of the Blind (the ACB affiliate in my state)
has little more love for NAC than we of NFB do.  So ACB has opted to choose
maximum breadth of public expression over political effectiveness.

Second, as Gary has pointed out, NFB history is replete with examples of
agencies bent upon NFB's destruction exploiting publicly-expressed
disagreements over NFB policy to inflame those disagreements and/or to
plausibly contend that we of NFB do not speak for our own membership.  I
know this seems far-fetched in this day and age.  But it really did happen
and there's no reason why it could not happen again.  WE have made much
progress in vanquishing reactionary agencies but there are still a few
around.  Moreover, even today, politicians not infrequently use
disagreements among blindness organizations as excuses for inaction.  How
much more ammunition would they have if they were able to cite public feuds
and disagreements within NFB.

As for the Democratic and Republican parties allowing public dissent, they
do -- up to a point.  We must remember that those who dissent owe their
primary allegiance to the constituents who voted them in -- not to their
parties.  And yet parties *do* enforce some discipline.  Members of the
Senate and House of representatives who publicly buck party-line votes too
often find themselves bereft of choice committee assignments and,
construction projects and water projects and subsidies or tax breaks for
local industries in their districts suddenly and mysteriously dry up.  How
much power does Joe Lieberman have these days?

So yes, free speech is allowed but, as David Andrews points out, it must be
done carefully, judiciously and with correct timing.

You ask what we fear in public dissent by our membership or at least
questioning by our membership of NFB policies.  You cite some specific
examples, Our Braille Bills being one of them.  Although I could be wrong,
use of this example suggests that you were not around during our long fight
to get Braille bills adopted by a majority of the states (it took eight
years here in Washington.)  In fact, for many years, the American
Association of Educators and rehabilitators of the Blind and visually
Impaired (AERBVI or AER for short) specifically used disagreements between
those blind persons who were proficient in braille and those vision-impaired
persons who were not proficient in braille or who saw no reason for braille
in view of modern technology as excuses to oppose our legislation at every
turn.  To be sure, those blind persons who didn't favor our legislation
weren't in NFB.  But they *could* have been and, I submit, it only makes
sense to control the adverse factors one can.

We're not afraid of ideas; we're afraid of a fragmented message.

Hope this helps.

Mike




-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-editors-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-editors-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Bridgit Pollpeter
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:00 PM
To: nfb-editors at nfbnet.org
Subject: [Nfb-editors] In terms of addressing and questioning NFB policies

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


_______________________________________________
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