[Nfb-editors] In terms of questioning NFB policy

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

Everyone,

First, I understand the finer points of "free speech" as I had to write
a 30-page paper on it early in my college career.  I simply meant ones
choice, and right, to address concerns with an organization.

I appreciate those who have been willing to answer questions instead of
deflecting them.

I am in league with the past reasoning within the Federation as well as
our current stance on many issues.

I have been around for the Braille legislation-- I was just using it as
an example since it is still current.  I have not always been blind, but
I find it appalling that so many-- including the blind-- believe Braille
is obselete and cumbersome to learn.

Here in Nebraska we are pushing for local Braille legislation, and it
has been a long battle.  Education officials refuse to listen and yet we
are the ones using Braille.  I am a cynic, but perhaps I am naïve.  Why
would we, the users of Braille, lie about our position?  Is not the
proof in the pudding?  And can someone explain that phrase?  LOL

A ceasfire has been issued on the list, and I apologize for tilling the
ground as it were.  I am not interested in being controversial or
shocking.  When I have questions, I ask, and I want to fully understand
the cogworks of the organization.  Often this is seen as controversial,
and the term, "trouble maker," has been thrown around before, but I am
genuinly interested and curious.

But I am sorry for any offended or turned off by any of my remarks.
While the topic may have drifted, I do not believe I said anything
shocking or derogatory about the Federation.

I believe a dialogue helps us grow and learn, but I also agree we can
not discuss and debate every fine detail as we exist out there in the
ether.

Some of these discussions have gone on too long, however, as editors of
NFB publications, it is good to understand our organization and to find
an appreciation of our causes and stances.

Our publications often are the face of the Federation, and we should be
armed and prepared for what comes next.

While some disagree, I believe any discussion revolving around blindness
brings us to a better understanding of ourselves, of the NFB and of the
world around us, which leads to strong Federationist and stronger
newsletters.

You have to admit, the list has been jumping, and I enjoy the process of
a philosophical discussion.  *smile*

So here is to a fresh start.  We have discussed aspects of each others
editing process, where do we go?  Any ideas, Robert?  Where can we move
on from this point?

Bridgit

Message: 11
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:35:34 -0700
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'Correspondence Committee Mailing List'" <nfb-editors at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Nfb-editors] In terms of addressing and questioning NFB
	policies
Message-ID: <000f01cbe90b$61dd0d60$25972820$@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

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