[NFBOH-Cleveland] Happy Birthday NFB! A Brief History of the National Federation of the Blind

[smturner.234 at gmail.com]

Ohio,

 

It our Birthday!

 

For those who do not know the history of the organization that you either
pay dues or wish to join, this is for you!

 

However, this information is equally for us all!

 

 

Happy reading!

Suzanne

 

///

 

A Brief History of the National Federation of the Blind

By Dr. Marc Maurer

On November 16, 1940, sixteen blind individuals came together in a hotel
meeting room in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, to form the National Federation
of the Blind. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, the person who had most strongly urged
that this gathering take place, became the President of the fledgling
organization. At the time, the formation of the Federation established a
precedent. Although schools for the blind had been established in many
states and sheltered workshops for the blind existed in a number of places,
no national membership organization of blind people led by blind people had
come into being. Blind people could not run their own organizations, it was
said. They needed others to speak for them. This was the considered opinion
of the professionals in the field of work for the blind.

The National Federation of the Blind was formed because of conflict. Through
the many decades of the organization, it has been sustained by conflict. One
powerful element that directs the action of the Federation even today
remains conflict. Many who become aware of the history of the National
Federation of the Blind express amazement that conflict should be at the
heart of the organization. But this is a real and unavoidable part of the
lives of the leaders of the blind, and the reason for the conflict is not
hard to find.

The driving force behind the establishment of the National Federation of the
Blind involved the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Act,
passed in 1935, established certain benefits for blind people. Dr. tenBroek
and those who joined with him wanted equality for the blind. They wanted the
chance to attend public high schools and colleges, the chance to raise
families, the chance to work to earn a living. Most jobs were not open to
the blind, and the thought that blind people had a right to a public
education would wait to become law until the 1970s. Consequently, blind
people were almost universally unemployed. In many states local welfare
systems granted subsistence benefits to the blind based upon the judgment of
the social worker. Dr. tenBroek had applied for welfare benefits after he
had finished high school, but when the officials in the welfare office
learned that he had enrolled in the University of California, they withdrew
his benefits because they said he was not using them for the necessities of
life but for extraneous activities. The purpose of welfare was to prevent
him from starving not to make it possible for him to go to school. When
Social Security made national policy regarding aspects of welfare, a
national organization to address inequities in the administration of the
program became necessary.

Congress had also adopted the Randolph-Sheppard Act, offering support for a
vending program for the blind in 1936. And Congress passed the Wagner-O'Day
Act in 1938, which declared that the government would purchase products
produced at workshops for the blind. The National Federation of the Blind
intended to serve as the voice for the blind to address the conflicts that
arose from national legislation and national policy affecting blind people.

A central feature of the National Federation of the Blind is the national
convention. Members of the Federation come together to make policy about
what the future of blindness will be, to decide how to carry out the policy,
and to elect the officers who are directed to carry out the program.

In the 1950s, emphasis shifted from concentration on self-organization to
addressing rehabilitation. What should the relationship be between the
National Federation of the Blind and the government programs intended to
provide services to the blind? Do program administrators have an obligation
to report their activities to the organized blind? Can blind people work,
and at what jobs? If rehabilitation programs do not assist blind people to
find employment, are they obliged to change to meet the needs of blind
people? Are they permitted to make policy without considering the opinions
of the blind? The philosophical basis for Federation programs remained as it
had started. Blind people have the same basic talents as others.
Consequently, the Federation decided to promote engagement of the blind in
public and private occupations throughout the nation. Blind people became
employed as teachers, sales personnel, and factory workers, as well as in
other professions, but the federal government refused to hire. The
Federation challenged this discrimination in court and in Congress. Before
the end of the decade some federal employment opportunities opened to the
blind.

As the success of the Federation increased and as the funding became more
substantial, some people who wanted to control the organization raised
questions about the governing structure. Dr. tenBroek had been elected
President in 1940, and he remained in the principal office until 1961. Was
the president the principal operating officer of the Federation? Did the
president have the authority to make expenditures? Were the policies
established by the organization to be carried out by the president? Should a
committee be established to direct the president in the best methods for
implementing policy? Were the state organizations that were affiliates of
the Federation bound to respond to the directions of the president? Were the
staff members of the organization independent individuals, or were they
subject to the direction of the president? Dr. tenBroek thought he had been
elected to direct the implementation of policy. However, others within the
organization wanted to have the right to implement policy in whatever way
they chose. They charged Dr. tenBroek with behaving as a dictator, but they
could never muster enough votes to have somebody else elected to the
presidency.

Eventually the argument came to be, does the national organization set
policy with the right of the president to implement it, or is each member
and each subgroup independent of others with the right to direct policy and
the associated right to ignore the policy of the national organization? The
matter started with the question of the authority of the president but soon
deteriorated into internal strife, which came to be named the NFB Civil War.
In 1958 the constitution was amended to say that policy decisions of the
Federation are binding. In the minds of many of the delegates in attendance
at the convention, this modification to the constitution was a reaffirmation
of longstanding policy. By 1960 the Federation adopted a policy that all
state organizations in the Federation must acknowledge that decisions of the
national organization are binding. In 1961 those states that refused to sign
such a policy were invited to leave. Delegates from these states formed the
American Council of the Blind. Although the internal argument in the
Federation caused severe damage, it was over in 1961. The Federation began
to rebuild.

By the 1960s a number of Federation leaders decided to engage in directing
programs of rehabilitation for the blind. In Iowa, the person who would
become the second long-term President of the Federation, Dr. Kenneth
Jernigan, built the most successful program of rehabilitation for the blind
that had ever existed. Blind engineers, blind scientists, blind financial
managers, blind farmers, blind machinists, and other blind workers received
training in the programs Dr. Jernigan directed.

As the Federation recovered its strength, some of the directors of
reactionary programs for the blind felt threatened. They established the
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped (NAC) ostensibly to set standards for good practice by agencies
for the blind. However, the avowed purpose of the NAC program was to control
all federal and state funding flowing into rehabilitation programs for the
blind and to do so without inviting organizations of the blind to
participate. For example, it was at that time quite legal (and it remains
legal today) to pay blind workers less than the federally established
minimum wage. Federation leaders said paying wages below the federal minimum
is reprehensible. NAC officials refused to consider Federation arguments
that legalized discrimination remains discrimination, and they would not let
the blind participate in the meetings in which accreditation is approved.
The practice of NAC accreditation also contained a striking amount of
favoritism. Those friendly with NAC received accreditation while a number of
those unfriendly to NAC did not. In the early 1970s the National Federation
of the Blind decided that the system of favoritism and special interest
represented by NAC must not be permitted to remain. Public demonstrations
against the repressive system began in New York and continued throughout the
United States through the 1970s and the 1980s. By the early 1990s the
evidence indicated that NAC had failed. Yet there are those who would like
to revive the system, including all of the strife that went with it.

At the beginning of the Federation, the business was conducted largely from
the home of the president. By the 1950s offices had also been established in
Washington, DC. However, the Federation did not have a permanent address.
When the president changed, the office changed; when the president moved,
the office moved. In 1978 the Federation established a permanent office at
the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore, Maryland. In 1999 the
Federation initiated a fundraising campaign to build a new building on a
portion of the property at the National Center for the Blind, a project
completed in 2004. The National Center for the Blind contains meeting rooms
and offices along with facilities for housing and feeding Federation members
and others who participate in the programs we conduct. Dr. Kenneth Jernigan
discovered the property in 1978 and converted it from a building for light
manufacturing to an office complex. In 1990 the Federation established the
International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind. Efforts to
harness technology for the use of the blind have occurred throughout modern
history, but employing the power of the computer for this purpose began in
1972. At that time a Federation member invented the method of producing
Braille on a computer printer. Desultory efforts in the technology field
continued through the 1970s, and in the 1980s the first of the notetakers
for the blind was invented by a Federation leader, Tim Cranmer, who had been
directing state programs for the blind in Kentucky. Similar inventions had
come to the market from many sources. The National Federation of the Blind
collected all of the technologies adapted for the use of the blind in one
room and found staff members to master all of the programs and devices
sufficiently to be able to offer advice to those wishing to build future
projects or to implement the technologies then available. The International
Braille and Technology Center for the Blind has continued to be a major
program of the Federation.

In 1994 the NFB-NEWSLINERprogram started. This program captures text from
newspapers and magazines published in the United States and from other
places in the world. The text is converted to speech. Blind people may use
the system to gain access to all of this information on a daily basis. At
one time getting news was a challenge for the blind, but the NFB-NEWSLINE
program makes access to information fast and easy.

Programs involving the blind that are pioneered by the Federation at the
national level become activities in state affiliates of the organization. In
the 1980s the rehabilitation system pioneered in Iowa under the direction of
Dr. Kenneth Jernigan became the model for rehabilitation programs privately
established under the direction of state affiliates of the National
Federation of the Blind in Louisiana, the Louisiana Center for the Blind;
Colorado, the Colorado Center for the Blind; and Minnesota, Blindness:
Learning in New Dimensions. The difference between these programs and others
in the rehabilitation program sector is that they incorporate the hopes and
dreams of individual blind people from throughout the nation into the
training that they offer. These programs also serve as an integrated part of
the network of the National Federation of the Blind, offering support to the
Federation and gaining information from Federation members and leaders. The
philosophical basis of training in these programs is the understanding that
blind people have talent which can be developed through instruction. Much of
the time the best teachers are other blind people who have had enough
experience to bring understanding.

Other national programs that have been implemented among the states include
those that perform science training. Blind people have almost always been
told at school that they cannot participate in science. In 2004 the National
Federation of the Blind conducted its first national science training
program for the blind. These programs have had broad ranges of activities
from dissecting sharks to building boats that are big enough to use on local
waterways to making ice cream with liquid nitrogen to designing robots. Some
of these programs have recurred in state organizations of the Federation.

Blind people learn by sound and touch much of the time. Braille is an
effective reading medium for the blind. Strange as it may seem, some
teachers of the blind doubt the effectiveness of Braille. Consequently, the
Federation decided to teach Braille to blind students. Each summer the
Federation conducts BELLR (Braille Enrichment for Literacy and Learning)
academies in several states as well as virtually. More Braille is taught by
the National Federation of the Blind than by any other entity in the nation.

Innovation has been an important part of Federation thinking. Years ago,
Federation leaders thought that it would be practical to put a blind
drivable car on the road. With several years of engineering work with
Virginia Tech University, the machine was developed. Mark Riccobono drove
the machine on the Daytona International Speedway in 2011.  Although a
program to build more of these vehicles has not been established, the
lessons we learned in building the blind drivable car are now being used to
bring comprehension to the efforts we are making to ensure that the
interfaces being planned for autonomous vehicles will permit the blind to
use these devices.

The philosophy of the Federation is that blind people have capacity and that
we have a right to participate in all activities of our society. We have
contributions to make, and we want to make them. We also want the
recognition that comes with equal participation. Equal participation
requires equal access to information. These are the principles that govern
the work of the National Federation of the Blind. Although certain of the
characteristics of the organization change from time to time, the
fundamental purpose and the essential spirit of the organization do not. The
Federation in many ways is the same today as it was when it was formed in
1940.

The Philosophy and Brand of the National Federation of the Blind

When we speak about the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind,
we are referring to what we collectively believe to be the truth about
blindness. This philosophy includes what we embrace within the National
Federation of the Blind, what we pledge to ourselves and one another, what
we demand from society on terms of equality within education and employment,
and what we seek in being seen as within our society: people who happen to
be blind.

We can begin the conversation about our philosophy with a discussion of the
National Federation of the Blind brand. Our brand is not only how others
perceive us but also how we perceive ourselves. Our brand is far more than a
logo or tag line. It is our collective statement on who we, the members of
the National Federation of the Blind, choose to be.

The National Federation of the Blind Brand

Understanding Our Brand

Our brand is the reputation that we have and want to have. The National
Federation of the Blind has always had a brand. In 2017, a committee
appointed by the President worked out messaging so that our brand can be
consistently explained and represented by any member, chapter, affiliate, or
division. To do this, the committee constructed what is called a "brand
architecture." The National Federation of the Blind brand also has a "visual
identity," which includes our logo and describes how materials relating to
the National Federation of the Blind should look. For a more in-depth review
of the National Federation of the Blind brand and guidelines for use of the
National Federation of the Blind logo please reference the elements of our
brand architecture in ourbrand standards guide.

The Architecture of the Brand

Our brand is made up of ideas, values, characteristics, and qualities that
we want to be known for. The brand architecture defines our brand. It is a
reminder of our organizational values as we make decisions and act. The
brand architecture guided the creation of the One Minute Message and the
tagline "Live the life you want." It should also guide all our other
messaging. The components of the brand architecture are not necessarily
intended to be used as external messages, but you may find that some of them
can be. Many of our leaders find the brand promise to be a particularly
powerful statement and use it in speeches, presentations, and documents. Our
brand position is that the NFB is the only organization that believes in the
full capacity of blind people, and has the power, influence, diversity, and
determination to help transform our dreams into reality.

Our One Minute Message

The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the
characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the
expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles
between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want;
blindness is not what holds you back.

Our Brand Promise

Together with love, hope and determination, we transform dreams into
reality.

Brand Values

Our brand values are the essence of our brand. Values are the code by which
the brand lives-the principles upon which we make our decisions. They are
the heart and soul of the organization. The National Federation of the Blind
brand values are as follows:

Courage

Fighting for freedom takes perseverance and unwavering determination in the
face of challenges, setbacks and difficulty. For more than seventy-five
years the NFB has led this fight and made significant progress on the road
to complete freedom and equality for the blind. It will take our continued
courage to "break down the remaining barriers on the last miles of the road
to freedom," to quote Dr. Marc Maurer.

Respect

Our faith in the capacity and dignity of blind individuals is at the heart
of our mission. We assert the right to be treated fairly and equally. We
reject society's low expectations that come from the ingrained belief that
blindness is the characteristic that exclusively defines us.

Full Participation

We assert that blind people have a right to live fully and equally in the
world. From this flows our expectation that society will not artificially
prevent blind people from full participation. The world is better off when
all of its people can contribute all that they have to offer.

Love

The NFB provides a loving, supportive, and encouraging family that shares in
the challenges and triumphs of our blind brothers and sisters. This deeply
held faith in one another sustains members during times of challenge and
cheers on individual and collective successes. Love is the feeling that
permeates our organization and pushes us to expect the best from each other.

Democracy

The NFB is the original and largest organization OF the blind. By virtue of
being a democratic organization open to all blind people, we represent the
issues that are important to the blind openly and fairly. National, state,
and local officers are elected by the membership of the NFB to ensure a
representative form of government and democratic decision-making practices.
Our membership-driven structure ensures blind people may determine their own
future rather than relying on others to advocate for them.

Collective Action

The primary purpose of the NFB is "to serve as a vehicle for collective
action by the blind." A core belief is that the blind can and will speak for
themselves. Embodied in this self-determination is the understanding that
progress comes from blind people working together, sharing individual dreams
and speaking with a more powerful, unified voice than any one person could
on his or her own.

Visual Identity

Our brand standards guide also explains the visual identity of our brand,
including how to properly use our logo and how to format NFB documents and
emails. After you consult the brand standards guide, if you still have
questions about the brand architecture or visual identity or need assistance
in using them for your own materials or presentations, please send an email
tocommunicationsteam at nfb.org.

What is the Philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind?

Now that you have a good idea of how we choose to define ourselves and how
we want others to perceive us to be as well, let's move into a review of
what our philosophy is. Below is a reprint of an article written by Gary
Wunder, President Riccobono, and Dr. Marc Maurer in the April 2018 issue of
theBraille Monitorexplaining their perspectives and beliefs about what the
philosophy of the Federation is and what it is not.

NFB Philosophy: What It Is and What It Is Not

by Gary Wunder, Mark Riccobono, and Marc Maurer

>From the Editor: In response to the article "Tax Deductions for the Blind:
Are They Something We Deserve, and Should We Fight for Them?" published in
the January 2018 issue, I received a most interesting question. Boiled down
it is what is NFB philosophy and are there things one must and must not do
to follow it. What prompted the question was the letter that talked about a
tax deduction for being blind and whether asking for this wasn't as
contradictory as asking to preboard an airplane. The writer who inquired
wanted to know if it is an article of faith in the NFB philosophy that we
will not preboard and wonders exactly what the NFB philosophy is.

My initial email to her said that I consider the NFB philosophy less a set
of commandments and more like the application of the Golden Rule. My
understanding of what we believe is that there is no list of thou shall and
thou shalt not's but instead a mindset that asks, "Is this something I need
based on blindness? If it is, I will take it and advocate for it. If it is
not, I will not borrow against the goodwill and public support that people
feel about blind people. Instead, I will try to educate and will hope that I
can bank some of those good intentions for things I really need."

Not content with my own understanding and thinking that the thoughts of
others might make an article worth publishing here, I wrote to four people
asking if they wished to try defining the NFB philosophy. Two of them
responded. It is no surprise that one of them was President Riccobono. As
one might expect, the other was Immediate Past President Maurer. Here is
what they said in response to my letter asking if they had thoughts to
share. Neither believes that he has written the definitive word on our
philosophy, and the door remains open for other thought-provoking articles
on the subject:

>From President Riccobono:

Dear Gary,

As you know from our telephone conversation, I wrote an extensive reply to
you which I lost to a Microsoft gremlin. I have been eager to get back to
this, so I took a few minutes at the question yesterday. There is definitely
more that can be said on this topic, and I think there is at least one idea
that did not come to mind in my rewrite today.

Exploring the question of what is the NFB philosophy and what elements of it
are articles of faith is a good idea. I know that my friend Marc Maurer, who
has taught me the nature and art of philosophy over the years, will have
ideas about this topic. Let me give you the thinking of where my mind went,
since it strikes me that philosophy is the art of thinking about thinking.

The word philosophy comes from Latin and from the Greek word philosophia
"love of wisdom." Today it is often defined as "the study of the fundamental
nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as
an academic discipline." Philosophy is about creating understanding (wisdom)
and then turning that understanding over to determine if it holds together.
Sometimes it does not hold together because it is inconsistent (logic), and
sometimes it does not hold together when tested in the real world. This
summer I described philosophy as a "pattern of thought," as that is how I
have come to think about it, especially in the art of attempting to
contribute to it in the form of banquet speeches.

In contrast, an article of faith is a "firmly held belief." One can take
something as an article of faith without having any philosophy of any type.
In fact, I am certain we all know people who have firmly held beliefs based
on some experience and not truly because they have reasoned through it
systematically. I think I take certain things as articles of faith because
of my experience with NFB philosophy. One is the idea that we, as blind
people, are best suited to determine what is best for the blind. This comes
from NFB philosophy, but I think I consider it an article of faith because I
have observed it tested out in the world, and I know how it works better
than the alternatives-both in my own life and for us as a movement. I think
Dr. tenBroek held this belief, and he did so before we had a shared
philosophy. Maybe he held this belief because he thought critically about
blindness-which we now think of as NFB philosophy-or maybe he did because
Dr. Perry instilled it in him.

This leads me to wonder where the individual comes into NFB philosophy. The
Federation provides a pattern of thought, but it is up to us to think about
it and apply it. I know that we have an extensive body of literature about
blindness. On our website we define some of it as "philosophy." That page
can be found at https://nfb.org/literature-philosophy. This section
incorporates by reference all of the banquet speeches. Does that body of
literature constitute NFB philosophy? Most certainly there are pieces that
are not mentioned. My friend Bill Meeker wrote an article that appeared in
theBraille Monitorin December 1994 entitled "The Blind Table." This article
makes certain observations about where the blind get seated in restaurants.
I consider it part of understanding our NFB philosophy in as much as it is
an expression of how our pattern of thought teaches us to evaluate the world
around us. I doubt many people remember or even notice the ideas Bill shares
in that article, but I think it could be considered part of our pattern of
thought. This raises the idea for me that our NFB philosophy gains strength
as more people are learning about it and testing it.

Many times people simplify the critical thinking that the NFB philosophy
challenges us to do by boiling it down into bite-sized rules.
"Federationists never take preferential treatment because it is against our
philosophy," is one example. Another is "Real Federationists use rigid canes
because they are proud to be blind." The rules always cause trouble because
they demonstrate more black and white than the NFB philosophy offers. When I
was a student at the Colorado Center for the Blind, I found use of the rigid
cane helped me focus on the skills I needed to learn, while enforcing the
pattern of thought that I could direct my own movements and manage my own
affairs. When I choose to use a telescoping cane today-I have both types in
the corner of my office-I know it comes with the disadvantage that it might
collapse. If I am running out of the office to meet a business associate who
is picking me up to go to lunch, I will likely grab my telescoping cane as I
am not sure what type of car they might have or what the arrangements will
be at the restaurant. I have no trouble dealing with a straight cane, but I
can make a choice. NFB philosophy tells me I should make the choice that
makes sense for my independence and blending in. Other Federation members
might make a different choice for a different reason, and it will be
completely consistent with our philosophy. In other words, I think the
pattern of thought often gets confused with the actions we take. In any
philosophy, humans always struggle with the gaps between the idea and the
action we take. Our philosophy urges us to continue examining ourselves just
as many religious philosophies invite people to regularly ground themselves
in being God-like-an extremely high standard by any measure.

Your email asks whether avoiding preboarding is an article of faith in the
NFB philosophy. This is an interesting question. For me, NFB philosophy
guides me to consider whether there are any artificial barriers in the
boarding process that require me to be treated differently-I say no. NFB
philosophy asks me to consider whether it is necessary for me to stand out
as needing special treatment by preboarding-I again find myself saying no.
NFB philosophy does not tell me what to do but leads me to a place that
informs my decision. Recently I had the A1 boarding position on a Southwest
flight. The only people that got on the plane before me were pre-boarders.
Since I was at the front of the A line and very visible to the boarding
attendant, he wanted me to preboard. Functionally there should have been no
difference to him whether I preboarded or not as I was effectively boarding
ahead of everyone else. He insisted that I preboard even after I told him
"no thank you." I wondered if having the back and forth with him was
helpful. Once I successfully convinced him to drop it, a nearby passenger
remarked to me that the gentlemen really did not trust that I knew my own
capacity. I choose to board with the rest of the group because NFB
philosophy generally leads my mind to a place where I think it is the best
for me and for other blind people. It was not until I had the experience of
being the first regular boarder on the plane that I truly realized how
powerful that perception line is to others. If the idea of boarding with
everyone else was not a firmly held belief before, it is now. Having said
that, I think the NFB philosophy challenges me to consider preboarding and
if there truly is a reason that I need it. I sometimes take this option when
I have to walk out onto a noisy tarmac. The only times I do not are when I
am with someone or when I have gotten to know someone in the boarding area
that I feel comfortable asking to walk near me. I find it more consistent
with NFB philosophy to ask to preboard or walk with someone than to boldly
walk out into the noise and hope that someone grabs me and steers me in the
right direction or yells loudly enough that I can hear them. I do not ask
the person next to me unless we have already been engaged in conversation,
because I think it might reinforce whatever misconceptions they already
carry. That level of complexity in thinking has come with years of living
the NFB philosophy every day. When I was a college student on my way to my
first national convention, I would not have had that level of sophistication
in my thinking. On my way back from my first national convention, I probably
knew that many Federation members did not choose to preboard, but I did not
understand why. When the airline put me in a room with twelve-year-old
children, I began to understand it better. The pattern of thought is
important, but the actual practice of it helps to make it real. The two
build on each other. This developmental process is much of what Dr. Jernigan
discusses in "The Nature of Independence." This is also why our training
centers are powerful and effective. They do not simply teach the skills, but
they reinforce the pattern of thought, and they teach blind people how to
evaluate the thought process.

The NFB philosophy also gets a bad reputation when individuals project it
onto others. I think the NFB philosophy encourages me to share it with
others, and I very badly want other blind people to know the freedom I know
I get from this pattern of thought. Leaders of the Federation-this is
definitely reflected in "The Nature of Independence"-challenge us to raise
our expectations but also to be careful about how we challenge others to
raise theirs. We all know of blind people who have pushed potential members
of the Federation away because we presented NFB philosophy as a "thou shalt
or you are not fit" sort of environment. I do not think that is inherent in
NFB philosophy, but rather a problem with humans making a pattern of thought
actionable. I think this is also the conflict that comes up related to our
philosophy and use of a guide dog. We all know people who talk about the dog
as the thinking entity. Yet our philosophy tells us that no matter the tool,
the blind person should maintain the locus of control. Thus, the best
handlers of guide dogs, in my opinion, are those who understand that the dog
follows the person's directions even if the dog is doing the physical
leading. We know that this becomes controversial since some blind people
understand this to be that NFB philosophy devalues dogs. In my mind, the NFB
philosophy establishes a pattern of thought that gives you guidance on how
to use the tools effectively.

The NFB philosophy is a pattern of thought that encourages us to explore the
boundaries of what is possible. The NFB philosophy is the belief that we are
the ones best suited to decide what works for us. The NFB philosophy is a
living way of thinking and acting upon the world as blind people, and it
evolves as more of us come to practice the patterns. If there are any
articles of faith, they probably consist of blind people know what is best
for blind people, blindness is not the characteristic that exclusively
defines us, and we should strive every day to raise expectations for
ourselves. Then again, we once took it as somewhat an article of faith that
blind people could do anything except for drive and fly an airplane. Then we
shattered the idea that driving was on the list. This might suggest that the
only article of faith is the faith that we have in one another to continue
testing the limits of our own future.

I am eager to hear what others have to share on this topic.

There you have President Riccobono's thoughts on the subject. Here is what
Dr. Maurer said in response to a similar request of him and the suggestion
by President Riccobono that he might want to chime in:

>From Immediate Past President, Dr. Marc Maurer

Dear Gary:

Thanks for your email asking, "What is NFB philosophy?" I gather that this
is the important piece of what you have written. I know that you are capable
of answering the question, "Does NFB philosophy prohibit preboarding an
airline?" The answer is that of course it does not. I have preboarded them
myself, and I have boarded with everybody else. The important part of NFB
philosophy is that I should decide when to do which.

Some of my friends have attempted to synthesize NFB philosophy in a list of
principles. I remember reading one of these once and being asked by its
author if any items had been omitted. I was busy at the time. Consequently,
I only thought about the question very briefly. However, one item which had
been omitted was that blind people working together can and should run an
organization that synthesizes thought about blindness and assists in
creating the kind of culture that welcomes blind people. I added this
thought to the list, but I felt unsatisfied.

The philosophy of the NFB says that blind people have value and that we
should act in such a way that we enhance that value and bring sighted people
to recognize it. It also says that blind people can lead independent, joyous
lives. It recommends that we behave in such a way that we increase the
possibility that this is the experience of the blind. NFB philosophy says
that in every meaningful way blind people are equal to sighted people. The
implications of these statements suggest that blind people should be trained
to pursue their own lives in ways that they find beneficial. It also urges
that blind people take advantage of the training. It does not require blind
people to take any certain training as an article of faith.

Hazel tenBroek was the wife of our founding President, Dr. Jacobus tenBroek.
She told me one time that the method for blind people to follow in ordering
a steak in a restaurant in the 1940s and the 1950s was that those ordering
the meat would routinely request that it be cut into bite-sized pieces in
the kitchen before being served. At one point in my Federation experience I
encountered a heated debate among Federation members about whether it was
proper to have somebody else cut your meat for you. My own opinion is that
if a blind person wants it done and can get it accomplished with a minimum
of inconvenience, it is quite proper.

I was recently on a dinner cruise boat. Part of the festivity involved being
served a lobster. I asked the waiter to manage getting the flesh from the
claws and the tail for me. I was not alone. My sighted buddies were doing
exactly the same thing. Neither they nor I felt diminished by the request.
It was also evident that the waiter was quite familiar with the process. He
must have done it hundreds if not thousands of times for diners on the boat.

How I live my life is my business. I reject being ordered to perform certain
actions or be certain places because of my blindness. I also reject such
orders for other non-important reasons. This is part of my NFB philosophy.
If I am told to keep my hands out of a place because the electricity in it
could shock or kill me, this seems sensible. If I am told to keep my hands
out of a place because it is not suitable for blind people, this seems
idiotic to me. How these principles are applied in life is a matter of
judgment. I insist on my right to use my own judgment. This also is part of
my NFB philosophy.

When I suggest that blind people learn Braille, I do so because I think it's
beneficial. When I suggest that blind people use long white canes, I do so
because it's beneficial. I have tried using a dog, but I've never given it
enough time to evaluate it properly. I don't have a strong opinion about the
benefits of using dogs. However, I have a very strong opinion about the
right of those who want to use them to be protected in this choice. Many of
my colleagues have told me that using a dog is liberating for them. I want
them to have the liberation, and I trust their judgment. Trusting the
judgment and experience of other blind people who know enough to give me
effective information is also a part of my NFB philosophy.

On the subject of the exemption in the tax code for the blind, it can be
argued either way. As the world is built for the sighted (at least a lot of
it), there are costs involved in managing as a blind person. It is possible
that the tax code should recognize these and compensate. However, it is also
possible to argue that although there are some costs for the blind that the
sighted do not have to meet, the difference is not so great that it should
be printed in every tax form in the land. I do not remember this argument
being pursued on the convention floor. It has been discussed extensively off
the convention floor from time to time, and the arguments are fierce. If the
debate comes to the convention, I shall be interested in how it develops.

The NFB philosophy is quite clearly not a fixed set of principles that can
never be modified. In one sense the National Federation of the Blind is the
same today as it was in 1940 when it came into being. The idea at the time
was that programs and policies about blindness must incorporate the view of
blind people and that the Federation was the appropriate organization to
represent the blind. Such remains as valid now as it was then. However, how
we interpret and carry into effect the philosophy that is ours has changed.

There was a time in the Federation during which a fierce argument occurred
about whether modifications to programs, buildings, and activities of living
should not be made on behalf of the blind. This principle remains largely
one in which we believe. However, with the digitization of virtually all
methods of communication, access to information for the blind becomes as
practical as it is for the sighted. We now believe that it is our right to
have access to all information put into digital form. Although this is not a
change in our fundamental beliefs, it does represent a change in emphasis.

At one time we thought and we said that print was not inherently available
to us. The way to get at it was recorded matter, Braille, or a reader. Today
we believe that we should have methods of getting such information that are
not separate and distinct from the way sighted people get it. We have spent
the last twenty years working to incorporate this thought into the minds of
the developers of technology. We have not yet been universally successful,
but our equality of access to information is greater today than it once was.

Undoubtedly there will be other changes in the emphasis that we give to the
implementation of NFB philosophy. The fundamental element of our philosophy
that will not change is that we in convention assembled will decide what we
want our policies to be.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfboh-cleveland_nfbnet.org/attachments/20251116/c1d29394/attachment.htm>