<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Ohio,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>It our Birthday!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>For those who do not know the history of the organization that you either pay dues or wish to join, this is for you!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>However, this information is equally for us all!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Happy reading!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Suzanne<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>///<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>A Brief History of the National Federation of the Blind<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>By Dr. Marc Maurer<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>In 1994 the NFB-NEWSLINE<sup>®</sup>program 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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 BELL® (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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>The Philosophy and Brand of the National Federation of the Blind<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>The National Federation of the Blind Brand<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Understanding Our Brand<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>The Architecture of the Brand<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Our One Minute Message<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Our Brand Promise<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Together with love, hope and determination, we transform dreams into reality.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Brand Values<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Courage</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Respect</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Full Participation</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Love</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Democracy</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Collective Action</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Visual Identity<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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@nfb.org.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>What is the Philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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 the<i>Braille Monitor</i>explaining their perspectives and beliefs about what the philosophy of the Federation is and what it is not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>NFB Philosophy: What It Is and What It Is Not<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>by Gary Wunder, Mark Riccobono, and Marc Maurer<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>From President Riccobono:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Dear Gary,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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 the<i>Braille Monitor</i>in 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I am eager to hear what others have to share on this topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>From Immediate Past President, Dr. Marc Maurer</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Dear Gary:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>