[nFBMI-Talk] [nfb-indiana] In Light Of New Discussion Over NAC 2018

Tue Jan 9 20:04:14 UTC 2018

Kane,
Thank you for publishing the thoughts of Sarah and Diane here. I can see where they are coming from at first glance, particularly if they are new to organizations of blind people. Your response to their comments is spot on my friend. A careful reading of Mark Riccobono's article in the Braille Monitor tells us that then NFB president Dr. Kenneth Jernigan did indeed endeavor to work with the people who came together to start NAC. And he did not do so just for a moment. Dr. Jernigan remained a member of Comstock for about 8 years if I remember correctly. During that time he came to the table respectfully; commenting with professionalism and insight about issues relating to blindness, rehabilitation and education. For those who might not be aware of Kenneth Jernigan's own credentials, he had taught at 2 state schools for the blind, California and Tennessee, and was serving as director of the Iowa Commission for the Blind during his time on the Comstock Board. He was extremely well-versed in issues relating to working with blind and visually impaired people of all ages. In fact, he was applauded by his fellow professional agency directors at the time who stated publicly that he brought vocational rehabilitation services for blind Iowans from being the worst in the Nation to the pinnacle of success. 

In spite of his credentials, his willingness to work with NAC's founders and his tremendous gift of working, negotiating and playing well with others, nothing Dr. Jernigan said was even acknowledged by NAC. That agency went on to accredit schools where blind children suffered from sexual and physical abuse,. The abuse was so egregious in one instance I recall, that a young girl actually died. And yet NAC took no action against these institutions but continued to accredit them as though they were ideal places for parents to send their young children to receive good care and a fine education. NAC went on to accredit vocational rehabilitation agencies that literally placed more than 80 percent of their supposedly successful blind clients in sheltered employment where they earned as little as one quarter of the federal minimum wage. Once again, NAC did not object to these outcomes but continued to accredit these agencies as models. 

I am confident that President Riccobono would take a different approach if the officials within AER (the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired) had reached out to the NFB in July or August of 2016, when they first decided to revive NAC. He would have taken a different approach if he had received any indication that the idea was to build a newer, better accrediting body and to shed the white-washed rubber stamp accreditation continuously applied by the original NAC. These things did not happen. Furthermore, when President Riccobono asked about plans to improve the accreditation that would be offered, his question was pushed aside and never given the dignity of an answer. 

This behavior certainly does not bode well for the future of this resuscitated body. We already have two organizations offering accreditation to rehabilitation organizations and training centers. One is CARF- (Council for the Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities) and the other is the NBPCB (the National Blindness Professionals Certification Board). Additionally, North-Central and other bodies now accredit schools for the blind and seem to do so in a manner that is professional and above-board. 

I am glad for the conversation, and I would encourage those who are new to our organization and/or unfamiliar with the history of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped, to re-read the article that appeared in the January Braille Monitor and to spend a little time conducting their own research on the history of this rather infamous organization. 

Christine

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NFBMI-Talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> Kane Brolin via NFBMI-Talk
> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:27 AM
> To: NFB of Indiana Mailing List <nfb-indiana at yahoogroups.com>; NFB of
> Michigan Internet Mailing List <NFBMI-Talk at nfbnet.org>; NFB Employment
> Committee Private E-mail List <employment-committee at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Kane Brolin <kbrolin65 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [nFBMI-Talk] [nfb-indiana] In Light Of New Discussion Over NAC
> 2018
> 
> Hi to Sarah and Diane, and thanks for your stimulating responses to those
> whole line of discussion about NAC as it relates to NFB policy, practice, and
> history.
> 
> I hope you don't mind; but I think this discussion is important enough that
> I'm copying the Michigan List and the Employment Committee list on what
> you've said.  These are good points.
> 
> On 1/8/18, sarah at sarahblakelarose.com [nfb-indiana] <nfb-
> indiana at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> > This is just my opinion, but I am a blind person and I think that
> > holds a bit of weight. :) There are many people who are blind who are
> > working in the blindness profession. I think that it would do them a
> > disservice if we take an adversarial stance today without paying
> > attention to the fact that many of them are themselves the ones doing
> > some of this research. If we dislike what is being done today, we may
> > need to come to terms with the fact that blind people ourselves do not
> > all do things in the same way and it is time to learn how to live with our
> diversity.
> 
> >  On 1/9/18, 'Graves, Diane' dgraves at icrc.IN.gov [nfb-indiana] <nfb-
> indiana at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> > Hi Sarah and All,
> >
> >  ...  I think we need to be careful about an adversarial approach [to
> > AER and the new NAC] at the outset.
> >
> >  ...  One of the things that I have discovered, just in my
> > conversations with other blind people, is that our sometimes
> > adversarial approach [in the NFB], tends to alienate us from other blind
> people.
> 
> Sarah and Diane, as you know, I am fairly new to playing an active role in the
> organized blind movement.  So in a perfect world, I don't find fault with what
> you say, because for many years I felt turned off by what I saw as an overly
> adversarial approach by some folks in the Federation whom I had met.  It can
> be a turn-off, particularly in situations where a young and fired-up
> Federationist who doesn't know how to show discretion will beat sighted
> acquaintances over the head with Federation philosophy, even when said
> sighted persons have no interest in blindness-related issues.  Yes, I've heard
> this happen first-hand, especially in my college days.
> 
> Yet we don't live in a perfect world.  Civil rights can and do go
> backwards unless we vigilantly protect them.   I would say that while
> different blind people can and should have the right to handle a situation
> differently from one another, we in the Federation need to be very staunch
> about protecting informed choice for the blind.  This means we must insist
> that blind people have a right to compete on equal terms for paid
> employment with blindness-oriented rehabilitation agencies and educational
> institutions, and we also must be invited to play a significant role--maybe
> even an executive role--as programs and agencies for the blind are
> administered.  The point is not that every blind person must be required to
> use Braille throughout daily life on pain of facing harsh judgment from his or
> her peers in the Federation.
> Braille is a personal choice.  So is the white cane or the dog guide.
> The point is not that every person with some residual eyesight must use
> learning shades and total blindness skills 24×7 after graduating from BLIND,
> Inc. or CCB or LCB.  But we must have access to structured discovery, Braille,
> and other tools and skills that have been developed and that are being used
> with success by blind consumers so we can have the opportunity to benefit
> from them if we want to.  In the event NAC or something like the old NAC,
> which excludes the blind consumer and blind researcher, ever takes hold
> again and comes to occupy a dominant position in rehabilitation and training
> facilities and blind schools across the country, then we blind consumers are
> in
> trouble.   I don't think Mr. Riccobono necessarily is insisting that
> the NFB play a dominant position in all these situations, but he is insisting
> that the Federation have a prominent seat at the table.
> This is the right thing to insist on, since so many newly blind persons and so
> many parents of blind children have no idea what to ask for.  We in the
> Federation must step up and use our collective voice and our legal muscle to
> demand things that individuals cannot successfully get across just on their
> own behalf.
> >
> >  ...  We’ve come a long way since the 60s/70s. Let’s keep it moving forward.
> 
> Maybe those of us who've  lived through the '60s, '70s, and '80s, are in a
> better position now than we were beforehand.  But it wouldn't take long to
> reverse course, and our children and grandchildren will not remember those
> prior struggles unless we remind them and keep organized behind the same
> principles which have gotten us into that better place.
> 
> -Kane
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NFBMI-Talk mailing list
> NFBMI-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NFBMI-
> Talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-
> talk_nfbnet.org/christineboone2%40gmail.com