[nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls

[ckrugman at sbcglobal.net]

This is a good. have been away and behind on responding. The other issue 
here that hasn't been discussed is the changes in demographics of the client 
population of RFB&D. This is no different than a corporation rebranding its 
products to reflect changes. Perhaps its time for us as blind people to 
realize that we don't have a corner on the disability market. There is much 
territoralism in the disability community as a whole and as a result very 
little gets accomplished.
Chuck
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls


>I don't know what the big deal about using PC language is. I don't see why 
>anybody would care if RFBD changes its name. If African Americans want to 
>be called African Americans from now on, that's fine by me.   If a woman 
>refers to herself as over weight instead of obese, what's wrong with that? 
>This whole PC language thing is a tempest in a teapot  dreamed up by people 
>who like to mind other people's business.
>
> The surest way to tell people that you're more interested in your own 
> convenience than their feelings is to refuse to use whatever label they've 
> chosen for themselves.  Its not going to hurt you to call African 
> Americans by that name if that's what they want. It might not change 
> anything but it won't hurt you either. Just do it and quit whining.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls
>
>
>> Frankly, I don’t think it matters one bit what language they use—it does 
>> not and will never change people’s ideas in an of itself.  We all know 
>> what "special" means (with quotes) in "special" education right?  And 
>> "exceptional" (again with quotes) in "exceptional" learner fixed this 
>> how? It didn’t.  It never will.
>>
>> The conflict-adverse (and usually progressively-minded) people behind 
>> such things seem to be under the impression that if you reduce language 
>> that that which cannot possibly be offensive, then nobody will ever be 
>> offended.  Yet I have seen people refer to people with disabilities as 
>> "crippled and handicapped folks" and do so with the utmost respect, 
>> preserving our dignity as few ever bother to do.
>>
>> I have already demonstrated twice the converse.  No matter what term you 
>> apply, if the user of that term has the intent of saying something that 
>> is offensive, they will do it.
>>
>> No problem has ever been solved by redefining language.  Attempts to do 
>> so are at best panicked attempts to hide a problem someone can’t figure 
>> out how to solve.  At worst, redefining language is used as a willful and 
>> malicious means of redefining an argument to allow for something that 
>> would be seen as reprehensible in plain language.
>>
>> Take blatant and unabashed discrimination against a blind college student 
>> on the basis of his disability—to the extreme of willful sabotage of 
>> field experience work.  Astonishing, disgusting, and it happens far more 
>> than any of us would like to admit, right?
>>
>> Let’s redefine some language.
>>
>> A blind person is simply a diverse learner.  We welcome diversity!  Our 
>> campus and the program in question feature a very diverse background of 
>> students!  Of course there are a few extreme cases where someone who is 
>> clearly not cut out for a given field, despite solid grades, enthusiasm, 
>> and skill both innate and acquired.  In such cases, the faculty feel it 
>> is their duty to act as gatekeepers to the profession, particularly when 
>> the profession is one in which there might be some risk.  You understand 
>> our caution, yes?
>>
>> The fact that up until the time in question not one single person with a 
>> disability has ever successfully completed the program and gone on to be 
>> employed in the field in at least a six year time span I am aware of in 
>> this case proves nothing, right?  There are a handful of such students 
>> every year.  They fail out of the program, or they just can’t seem to get 
>> hired they finish.
>>
>> Of course, nobody will call it what it is, because if you rock the boat, 
>> you could wind up in trouble with the unions—er, I mean, with your 
>> colleagues.  Even colleagues who are generally disliked by most   and 
>> known to be doing wrong to all.  Solidarity!  So nobody is willing to 
>> stand up and say, "These two people actively discussed how to ensure that 
>> this student fails the program," even if they will report such details 
>> privately.
>>
>> So people go about pretending there is nothing to see.  We don’t look too 
>> deeply, because we don’t like what we will find.  All it takes to cover 
>> the whole thing up is a simple facade.  Just redefine a few words and you 
>> don’t even have to lie.
>>
>> But even when it isn’t something that onerous, it still is an attempt to 
>> hide a problem.  I’ve heard that "Learning Ally" came about because 
>> people who are dyslexic don’t want to be classified as having a 
>> disability.  But they want their disability to be accommodated, they just 
>> don’t want to have to admit they’ve got one.
>>
>> Why?  What is so wrong with having a disability?  In the Federation, we 
>> understand this one quite well.  It’s the reason our training centers don’t 
>> allow people to use folding canes they can stuff out of sight at a moment’s 
>> notice (aside from the innate superiority of a rigid cane when actively 
>> using one and how that superiority aids in training.)  People are ashamed 
>> of their disability, and that is the problem.  Does changing the language 
>> allow them to NOT be ashamed?  No, it simply allows them to pretend, as 
>> long as everyone else goes along with the game.
>>
>> But you ARE blind.  And people ARE going to notice.  Either that or else 
>> they’re not going to know, and instead they’re going to just think you’re 
>> stupid.  Same thing with dyslexia.  As a dyslexic myself, I would rather 
>> people think I was dyslexic than stupid.  Of course, we didn’t know about 
>> my dyslexia until I was an adult because people had previously chalked my 
>> difficulties up to blindness and the use of visual techniques (which were 
>> all I learned as a child.)
>>
>> Changing the language doesn’t fix the problem, it only hides it.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> (If this isn’t my most coherent email ever, I’m up past my bedtime.)
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:57:19AM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>>Ryan,
>>>
>>>I like your friends and what they had to say.
>>>
>>>I hate political corrections!
>>>
>>>Thanks for sharing!
>>>
>>>
>>>Gloria Whipple
>>>Corresponding Secretary
>>>Inland Empire chapter
>>>nfb of WA
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>>Behalf Of Ryan O
>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:37
>>>To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
>>>Subject: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls
>>>
>>>Hi all. The recent name change of Recordings For the Blind and Dyslexic 
>>>has
>>>fostered a very interesting debate on a friend's facebook page. It put me 
>>>in
>>>mind of a speech by Dr. Jernigan some years ago. I decided to post some 
>>>of
>>>the debate here and see what others think.
>>>
>>>I will begin by posting the release from RFB&D, followed by some random
>>>comments from my friend's Facebook page. Since I am posting the comments
>>>without the permission of the various authors, I am changing their name.
>>>
>>>Here is the press release from RFB&D.
>>>
>>>Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic - Learning Ally For Blind Students
>>> April 12th, 2011
>>>Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D), a 63-year old nonprofit
>>>organization serving over 300,000 individuals across the U.S. with 
>>>learning
>>>differences and reading disabilities, announced that it has officially
>>>changed its name to Learning AllyT- effective April 11, 2011.
>>>
>>>The new name is accompanied by a tagline - Making reading accessible for
>>>allT - and was selected after months of research and focus groups were
>>>conducted with hundreds of RFB&D student members, parents, volunteers,
>>>education professionals and other stakeholders.
>>>
>>>"Changing the name of a long-established national institution such as 
>>>RFB&D
>>>is not something we entered into lightly," says Andrew Friedman, Learning
>>>Ally's President and CEO. "Our members themselves were the key driver of
>>>this transformation. For one thing, our mix of users today includes
>>>individuals with diverse learning differences that are outside the scope 
>>>of
>>>our former name.
>>>
>>>"Most important of all," adds Friedman, "our members have expressed loud 
>>>and
>>>clear that they don't wish to be labeled or typecast with a specific
>>>'disability.' They just want the same opportunities to succeed that 
>>>others
>>>enjoy. Our new name goes to the heart of supporting their desire to learn
>>>and achieve."
>>>
>>>Background: Recording for the Blind was founded in 1948, with a mission 
>>>to
>>>provide equal access to the printed word for veterans and others with
>>>blindness and visual impairment. Early volunteers recorded textbooks onto
>>>vinyl discs and tape reels. During the 1990s, RFB extended its mission to
>>>include access for people with dyslexia and learning disabilities, and
>>>changed its name to RFB&D. As its library grew to become the largest of 
>>>its
>>>kind in the world, RFB&D made audiobooks accessible on cassettes, CDs and
>>>downloadable formats with extensive navigation capabilities for students
>>>with reading disabilities. Users accessed their books with specialized
>>>assistive technology devices from a variety of vendors.
>>>
>>>In 2010, RFB&D embraced the latest mainstream technology, making its 
>>>content
>>>accessible on Mac and Windows computers for users at home or in school. 
>>>And
>>>in February 2011, a new application was released enabling its entire 
>>>library
>>>of downloadable audiobooks to be played on Apple iOS devices including 
>>>the
>>>iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. All of this is good news for the widening 
>>>base
>>>of students, parents, teachers and schools that Learning Ally serves.
>>>
>>>"We truly cherish the values of our founders and stand on the solid
>>>foundation built by countless RFB&D volunteers and donors," says Andrew
>>>Friedman. Today we recognize that as many as one in five individuals 
>>>learn
>>>differently. Now as Learning Ally, we continue to support our blind and
>>>dyslexic members, while positioning the organization to be even more
>>>inclusive - as an advocate and friend to people for whom access and 
>>>reading
>>>are barriers to learning."
>>>
>>>About Learning AllyT
>>>
>>>Founded in 1948 as Recording for the Blind, Learning Ally serves more 
>>>than
>>>300,000 K-12, college and graduate students, as well as veterans and
>>>lifelong learners - all of whom cannot read standard print due to 
>>>blindness,
>>>visual impairment, dyslexia, or other learning disabilities. Learning 
>>>Ally's
>>>collection of more than 65,000 digitally recorded textbooks and 
>>>literature
>>>titles - delivered through internet downloads and various assistive
>>>technology devices - is the largest of its kind in the world. More than
>>>6,000 volunteers across the U.S. help to record and process the 
>>>educational
>>>materials, which students rely on to achieve academic and professional
>>>success. Learning Ally, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is funded by grants from the
>>>U.S. Department of Education, state and local education programs, and the
>>>generous contributions of individuals, foundations and corporations. For
>>>more information, call (866) 732-3585 or visit 
>>>http://www.LearningAlly.org.
>>>
>>>>From Facebook:
>>>
>>>Starbuck
>>>cannot believe that RFB&D is changing their name to, "Learning Ally." 
>>>Stupid
>>>politically correct society!
>>>
>>>Weatherman
>>>Politically correct or just shorter to say?
>>>
>>>Starbuck
>>>Based on their own article about it, I'd say PC. They took a very 
>>>roundabout
>>>way of saying they don't like to place labels on people. The B and D in 
>>>this
>>>case standing for blind and dyslexic.
>>>
>>>Weatherman
>>>Really? Racial slurs are ok then? Sexist remarks are perfectly 
>>>acceptable?
>>>PC can definitely go overboard and I always advocate clarity in
>>>communication, but I think individual groups have a right to decide how
>>>they'd like to be addressed or described.
>>>
>>>Starbuck
>>>I dont' think either Dana or I are saying that racist/sexist remarks are 
>>>all
>>>right. But when we get so very touchy about offending someone, it goes
>>>overboard. People in today's society are afraid to use the word, "blind,"
>>>for example. I can't tell you the amount of euphimisms I've heard for 
>>>that.
>>>When I refer to someone as being black, rather than "African American," 
>>>God
>>>knows I'm not trying to put them down. Racism makes me angry, to put it
>>>mildly. But it seems our society is so very afraid of stepping on toes 
>>>now
>>>that we've swung to the other extreme of what you're saying.
>>>
>>>Weatherman
>>>I agree with you Alicia, and perhaps "we" have swung to far. I was 
>>>probably
>>>causing a bit of trouble :). I just don't think being PC should be 
>>>outlawed.
>>>It is rooted in something quite sensible.
>>>
>>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>>Weatherman, you are right in the fact that pc was probably rooted in good
>>>intentions. But what is it they say about the road to hell...
>>>
>>>Starbuck and I are all too familiar with political correctness gone to 
>>>the
>>>extreme. Neither she, or I, or any blind person I've ever heard of or
>>>encountered asked to be called, "visually impaired." Yet, here we are in 
>>>the
>>>21st century, where every agency and service for the blind uses the term,
>>>"visually impaired." Where did the term come from? I can't answer it, but 
>>>I
>>>can hazzard an educated guess. The sighted professionals in the
>>>rehabilitation field came up with that term to soften the blow of 
>>>blindness
>>>upon the public. But I can tell you that the only thing that has changed 
>>>in
>>>my 30 years of living has been the language used to address our issues.
>>>People are far more careful about what they say and how they say it, but 
>>>the
>>>careful maneuvering through the minefield of sensitivity only serves to
>>>high-light the fact that the problems still remain.
>>>
>>>I'm not a black guy, or gay, or female or a lot of things, but the 
>>>softening
>>>of the language over the past three decades or so has done nothing to
>>>convince me that political correctness serves as a means to foster any 
>>>sort
>>>of meaningful form of dialogue between groups. The labels are still 
>>>there.
>>>they are just a lot more fancy than they used to be.
>>>
>>>Perry Mason
>>>Harry, I saw your comment after posting my first one. I don't want to
>>>monopolize this topic but had to respond to it. In my experience, the 
>>>label
>>>of visually impaired versus blind actually makes a difference. When
>>>interviewing for jobs, or talking with professors about accommodations, 
>>>the
>>>term visually impaired seems to get you less resistance from them. They 
>>>seem
>>>to ask fewer questions about how you do X, Y, and Z, and seem to be more
>>>willing to trust you when you explain that you have the situation under
>>>control. Perhaps this is because the term "visually impaired" allows them 
>>>to
>>>think you have more vision than you do, but whatever the reason, I like 
>>>the
>>>results. That being said, you know I'm not a fan of our ultra PC society.
>>>
>>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>>Perry, you are making my point for me. If your professors are in deed 
>>>less
>>>resistent to the term, "visually impaired," as opposed to the notion of 
>>>you
>>>being, "blind," then that speaks more to their discomfort with your
>>>disability as a whole, rather than the phraseology.
>>>
>>>Perry Mason
>>>Harry,
>>>I don't think we can separate people's discomfort with a condition from 
>>>the
>>>way in which it is discussed. The terminology you choose when talking 
>>>about
>>>traits you have provides important context for others. Specifically, it
>>>helps them interpret the significance and quality of that trait to the
>>>person speaking. This is especially true if the audience has not 
>>>experienced
>>>the trait in question themselves. Suppose a woman were to say that she 
>>>was
>>>not slim when discussing her physical appearance. Doesn't that have a
>>>different connotation from obese? And if so, can you be faulted as a
>>>listener for coming to a different set of conclusions about her depending 
>>>on
>>>the terminology she uses? As a hypothetical, this woman is describing the
>>>exact same body with both sets of phrases.
>>>You could argue that this means people are more uncomfortable with 
>>>obesity
>>>than they are with an overweight person. I'm sure that's true to an 
>>>extent,
>>>but a lot of people don't know what to think before she starts talking. 
>>>They
>>>have no personal experience with being heavy. Thus, the next thing to do 
>>>is
>>>to utilize language the speaker chooses as a guide for understanding what
>>>and how she thinks about it. Her thoughts then act as a guide for the 
>>>ways
>>>in which I should react accordingly.
>>>I think this is the same with blindness. The word "blind" has a lot of
>>>negative connotation surrounding it, and some of it does not have to do 
>>>with
>>>disabled people at all. Examples include being blind drunk, being robbed
>>>blind, blindsided, etc. These common expressions do not deal with the
>>>physical condition but are used to discuss crappy events in every day 
>>>life.
>>>Thus, by using the term "blind", a speaker is associating himself with
>>>negatives, indicating to others that he views his lack of vision as such.
>>>The next logical reaction is to approach the condition with fear and
>>>distrust.
>>>I therefore conclude that phraseology helps people decide how 
>>>uncomfortable
>>>to be or not with the actual substantive issues. Granted, it's only one
>>>factor, and we should not use language that entirely hides the plain
>>>realities of life.
>>>Just some food for thought.
>>>
>>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>>Perry, once again, you have succeeded in making my point for me. Ironic 
>>>that
>>>you are employing fanciful wording and logical contortionism to make your
>>>arguments, while all the while high-lighting the real problem. To me, 
>>>this
>>>is the essence of political correctness. *grin*
>>>
>>>Interesting that you use the example of an obese female as a comparison,
>>>since society tends to stigmatize obese women in the same way that it
>>>stigmatizes blind people. A woman may choose to refer to herself as "not
>>>slim," "obese," or "fat," but in the end, the person she is talking to 
>>>knows
>>>she is overweight, whether he/she is fat or not.
>>>
>>>You are correct when you say that the obese woman has no power over the
>>>person's reaction to her self-description, but the cumulative effect of 
>>>her
>>>condition still has an impact on the person in question. He/she still 
>>>knows
>>>that this person is overweight, and whether we couch this in harsh or
>>>euphemistic terminology, the end result is the same. The imagery 
>>>associated
>>>with obesity; ugliness, gluttony, laziness, still lingers. The fat jokes
>>>still remain, but now they are whispered and snickered at privately 
>>>rather
>>>than being trumpeted in public. No, I can't experience life as a fat 
>>>lady,
>>>but I can witness the societal evidence around me that indicates that she 
>>>is
>>>still viewed with contempt.
>>>
>>>Life is the same when you are blind. You can contort yourself to more 
>>>easily
>>>operate within the comfort level of your professor, potential mate or
>>>perspective employer, but in the end, did it make a difference in being
>>>hired whether you used the word, "blind," or "visually impaired?" Most 
>>>blind
>>>people will answer with a resounding, "no!" That is evidence enough to
>>>illustrate the fact that political correctness has not helped us get 
>>>where
>>>we need to be.
>>>
>>>Perry Mason
>>>Hi Harry,
>>>In your previous message, you wrote something that I want to respond to.
>>>"A woman may choose to refer to herself as "not slim," "obese," or "fat,"
>>>but in the end, the person she is talking to knows she is overweight,
>>>whether he/she is fat or not. This is correct, but the goal was never to
>>>hide her weight issue. It was, instead, to frame it in a less threatening
>>>and negative light. Next, you write: You are correct when you say that 
>>>the
>>>obese woman has no power over the person's reaction to her 
>>>self-description,
>>>but the cumulative effect of her condition still has an impact on the 
>>>person
>>>in question. He/she still knows that this person is overweight, and 
>>>whether
>>>we couch this in harsh or euphemistic terminology, the end result is the
>>>same." I have to disagree with your conclusion. Your own language 
>>>indicates
>>>how you feel about yourself. This, in turn, effects how others perceive 
>>>you
>>>and treat you. So, if a woman says "I'm obese", and another says "I know 
>>>I'm
>>>overweight or not thin"," they are likely to get different sociological
>>>reactions from their peers and employers. Yes, it's correct that others 
>>>will
>>>still joke about this physical imperfection. Everything else can be made
>>>into a joke, so obesity doesn't escape that unfortunate fact. There's one
>>>more aspect I wanted to respond to. In the last line of your message, you
>>>talk about jokes being whispered to one another, instead of trumpetted in
>>>public. You seem to say that this, too, winds up with the same cumulative
>>>effect. I'm not sure this is the case either. If someone knows they will 
>>>get
>>>in hot water by making fat jokes, they will be careful who they say it 
>>>to.
>>>We still have bullies, but this potentially means that others, who have 
>>>not
>>>yet made their minds up about how to treat the woman in question won't 
>>>get
>>>the idea that it's acceptable and socially appropriate to laugh at her.
>>>Instead, she has a better chance of introducing herself, humanizing her 
>>>and
>>>the condition, and being treated more normally by many people. She will 
>>>not
>>>convince the prick who would have laughed openly in our non PC society, 
>>>but
>>>she very well could influence those not contaminated by such drivel if it
>>>was not openly allowed. You may think that people are going to do what 
>>>they
>>>want, regardless of regulations and any degree of political correctness.
>>>However, people are astoundingly seceptable to peer pressure, even as
>>>adults. In fact, a sociologist conducted an experiment where a person in
>>>authority commanded people to shock a volunteer who made mistakes 
>>>completing
>>>a task. Each time a mistake was made, the voltage was increased. Even as
>>>high as 320 volts, nearly three quarters of people pushed the button, 
>>>simply
>>>because someone else said so. Can you imagine this effect if we allowed
>>>jokes about those we perceive as ugly to be trumpetted? It would be like 
>>>the
>>>Milgram effect on steroids. Can political correctness hide one's 
>>>condition
>>>and perceived flawes? No it cannot. However, I am of the belief that it 
>>>does
>>>change the ways others view you and them.
>>>
>>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>>Perry, it appears we're going to have to agree to disagree about this 
>>>issue.
>>>You are approaching it from an idealistic perspective, while I am viewing 
>>>it
>>>from a more practical standpoint. Your analogy with the electroshock 
>>>study
>>>is interesting, but ultimately, it only amounts to a hypothetical that 
>>>can
>>>never be quantified in a social framework.
>>>
>>>My original premise was that political correctness has not aided the 
>>>blind
>>>in our quest to overcome many of the stereotypes facing us. Our 
>>>staggeringly
>>>and consistently high unemployment rate bolsters my argument. I don't 
>>>know
>>>what your current employment situation is, but I look forward to 
>>>revisiting
>>>this debate with you in a decade or so.
>>>
>>>Cheers, my friend.
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>nfb-talk:
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40webba
>>>nd.com
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>>nfb-talk:
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> nfb-talk:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net