[nabs-l] waver

[humberto]

High 5!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with this!

> ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Marc Workman" <mworkman.lists at gmail.com
>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>Date sent: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:08:10 -0700
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] waver

>I wasn't going to say anything, but Sean has motivated me.

>SW,
>Being blind, this class would present me with additional 
challenges and
>extra work not required of other students.
>Therefore, I shouldn't have to take it.

>Short argument, I know. Seems there must be a missing premise 
there
>somewhere, no? Maybe something like:

>People shouldn't have to do things that aren't fair.

>MW,
>Not sure you've presented the argument as strongly as you could 
have.  How
>about:

>Being blind, this class would present me with additional 
challenges and
>extra work not required of other students.
>Being require to complete extra work not required of other 
students, solely
>because I'm blind, is a form of discrimination.
>Students should not have to take classes that discriminate.
>Therefore, I shouldn't have to take this particular class.

>Now, you'll probably disagree, but don't disagree with the above 
version.
>Instead, show me why the following one is wrong, or why the two 
cases are
>not the same.

>Being a woman, this class would present me with additional 
challenges and
>extra work not required of other students.
>Being require to complete extra work not required of other 
students, solely
>because I'm a woman, is a form of discrimination.
>Students should not have to take classes that discriminate.
>Therefore, I shouldn't have to take this particular class.

>Besides, of course we shouldn't have to do things that are 
unfair.  I'm not
>sure exactly what you mean by fair/unfair, but I have in mind 
something like
>just/unjust.  Saying we should have to do things that are unfair 
is like
>saying we should have to do things that are unjust.  We certainly 
do have to
>do things that are unfair/unjust, particularly because we live in 
an unjust
>world, but this doesn't mean we should have to do these things.

>The point I would make is that a college that requires all 
students to take
>very visually oriented classes as part of completion of a degree 
has been
>badly designed.  It has been designed on the assumption that only 
sighted
>students will be attending the university.  And that is unfair, 
it's unjust,
>and it should be challenged.  Do you think it is common to 
require a music
>appreciation class at Gallaudet University? Imagine there were a 
university
>for the blind, would it make sense to require these highly visual 
courses?
>My guess is you will say yes because a lot can be learned from 
taking
>courses like this, math, biology, art history, etc.  I agree, but 
I'm also
>sure that if Gallaudet required a music appreciation course, and 
if this
>blind university required an art history course, the courses 
would be
>designed in such a way that the deaf and blind students wouldn't 
be forced
>to work harder simply to make up for the ignorance of the people 
who
>designed the course/curriculum.

>SW,
>If we say we want to be treated like anybody else, we have to 
mean it. The
>"when it suits me" Caveat undermines the whole stance.

>MW,
>If we say discrimination is wrong, we have to fight against it, 
in all its
>forms, including those cases where blind students are forced to 
do extra
>work simply because they are blind.

>SW,
>Wouldn't it be easier, and maybe more fair, to just have you skip 
the
>optional trip?"

>MW,
>Don't see how this would be more fair.  Perhaps if there were an 
argument
>showing that this really would be more fair, then you'd have 
something, but
>without this, I think the analogy fails.

>SW,
>Fortunately, we in the NFB are working together to make things 
less
>difficult, and through our collective work we have built, and 
continue to
>build, a brighter future for all blind people. I will, however, 
assure you
>that none of our progress was ever attained by requesting a 
waiver.

>MW,
>It sort of depends on what you mean by a waver.  The NFB has 
asked for
>things to be altered for the benefit of the blind.  I read 
Walking Alone and
>Marching Together not that long ago, and if I recall, one of the 
early goals
>of the organization was to make it so that blind people could 
earn money in
>the market place without having welfare benefits cut back.  Is 
this not a
>kind of a waver? Everyone else gets their benefits cut when they 
earn a
>certain income, but this shouldn't happen for blind people? This 
is one
>example that readily comes to mind.  I think pretty much any time 
a change
>has been requested that is designed to make things easier for 
blind people
>and will lead to differential treatment, this can be construed as 
a kind of
>a waver.

>I think it is too commonly thought that equality requires equal 
treatment,
>or that equal treatment requires treating people the same.  This 
is a
>simplistic understanding of equality.  If someone has good 
reasons for
>wanting to be treated differently, and I include the fact that 
treating her
>the same would result in discrimination among good reasons, then 
there is
>nothing wrong with treating her differently.  If someone sees 
that
>differential treatment and makes mistaken assumptions about the 
abilities of
>blind people, and then discriminates against me in the future, I 
will hold
>him responsible for making those false assumptions, not her for 
insisting on
>her right to be free from discrimination.

>I think if more energy were spent fighting the discriminatory 
design of
>products, services, and institutions, and less time spent coming 
up with
>clever ways of getting along within these badly designed systems, 
all blind
>people would be a lot better off, not just the clever ones.

>Best,

>Marc


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sean Whalen" <smwhalenpsp at gmail.com
>To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:50 PM
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] waver


>> Good afternoon,

>> I don't necessarily think that it is the purpose of NABS or the 
NFB to
>> prescribe rigid stances on issues like class waivers, 
paratransit use,
>> reduced price tickets for transport, when to accept or not 
accept
>> assistance, etc. In fact, I think that is not our purpose at 
all. People,
>> both inside and outside of the organization, seem to get the 
impression
>> that
>> we are some monolith that holds clear positions on such issues. 
If you
>> want
>> to know what the NFB thinks, go look at our resolutions and the 
programs
>> we
>> implement. Those are the policies of the organization. And, 
while we all
>> work to further them, the policy objectives of the organization 
may or may
>> not be in line with the thinking of any particular member of the 
group. I,
>> for instance, certainly have my points of disagreement with the 
NFB's
>> policies in certain areas, and just because I have chosen to be 
a member
>> does not mean that I have forfeited the right to my own 
opinions. Like
>> anything, you take the good with the bad. If I tell you I'm a 
Democrat,
>> would you automatically assume that I hold a specific set of 
views? Would
>> your knowing that I am a democrat entail your knowing how I feel 
about
>> every
>> issue, abortion, economy, education, etc.? Of course it 
wouldn't. So, why
>> does your knowing that I am an NFB member entail your knowing 
how I feel
>> about all issues related to blindness? Obviously, it doesn't.

>> This said, when it comes to the question of whether one should 
take a
>> waiver
>> for a class, there isn't even an official NFB stance. Nor should 
there be.
>> Certainly you are likely to find a prevailing opinion among our
>> membership,
>> but that doesn't make it "what the NFB thinks."

>> My personal opinion on the matter is that it is lazy, 
counterproductive,
>> and
>> absolutely the wrong thing to do. I'm sure somebody can show me 
a case
>> where
>> a waiver was the right decision, but there are counterexamples 
to
>> everything.

>> Ok, so you don't want to take the visual arts class that is 
required for a
>> BA. It would present certain challenges, and surely is not 
essential for
>> your history major. It would be way easier to just pick up 3 
other credits
>> somewhere else. The argument goes:

>> Being blind, this class would present me with additional 
challenges and
>> extra work not required of other students.
>> Therefore, I shouldn't have to take it.

>> Short argument, I know. Seems there must be a missing premise 
there
>> somewhere, no? Maybe something like:

>> People shouldn't have to do things that aren't fair.

>> That's about what you'd have to believe to make the "I'm blind, 
please
>> don't
>> make me." Argument hold water. Jeez, is it fair that math takes 
me so much
>> longer than my classmates. I'm an English major, and who really 
needs math
>> anyway? Wouldn't it be more fair if I could pick up some 
additional
>> English
>> credits to replace that pesky college algebra? More fair, maybe. 
Better,
>> no
>> chance in hell.

>> Universities have these requirements for a reason. You may agree 
or
>> disagree
>> with the reason, but there is an objective, namely graduating 
reasonably
>> well-rounded students, behind them. And please do not come with 
the line
>> about how blind students simply won't take anything away from 
certain
>> classes. I, a Political Science and Philosophy major by the way, 
took
>> calculus, statistics, and economics courses which were heavily 
visual in
>> many respects. Through work with classmates, instructors and 
readers I was
>> able to master the concepts at play in each without ever having 
any of the
>> information represented to me visually. So, can I draw or 
examine economic
>> or mathematical graphs? Nope, but I can sure understand what 
economists
>> are
>> talking about when they refer to them, and I can absolutely ask 
the right
>> questions of a lay person to glean the information I need from 
the graph.
>> So
>> often people get caught up in and intimidated by graphs, when 
all they are
>> are tools to represent data and illustrate concepts. Mastery of 
the
>> underlying concept is what is important.

>> So what about a visual arts class. Fortunately, I never was 
required to
>> take
>> one. I say fortunately, because I have no inclination to take 
such a
>> class,
>> and don't think I would enjoy it, though one can never know. But 
what if I
>> had been required to take a class on art history or something of 
the sort.
>> What if I had to have a reader come in and describe paintings to 
me? Would
>> that be a pain in the ass? Yes, probably. In an entire semester 
of
>> learning
>> about different styles of painting would I ever have the 
pleasure of
>> enjoying the aesthetic beauty of any of these works? No, I would 
not,
>> which,
>> incidentally is just another one of those things in life that 
isn't fair.
>> But, at the end of the class, would I know something about the 
progression
>> of artistic expression that I didn't know at the start? Yes, 
hopefully I
>> would. That is the point. I likely won't enjoy it, but neither 
will any of
>> the other students in the class who were forced to take it to 
graduate. So
>> I
>> had to work a little harder to not enjoy something. Such is 
life. If we
>> say
>> we want to be treated like anybody else, we have to mean it. The 
"when it
>> suits me" Caveat undermines the whole stance.

>> Imagine you get a waiver and don't have to take that bothersome 
art class
>> or
>> science lab, but some time later you wish to go on a student 
trip abroad,
>> and the school doesn't want to allow you to come along. "Why do 
you need
>> to
>> come with us to Egypt?" they ask, "It isn't required for your 
major, and
>> besides, it would really present us with some logistical 
problems."
>> Wouldn't
>> it be easier, and maybe more fair, to just have you skip the 
optional
>> trip?"

>> I'll leave it to you to draw the parallel.

>> If you think you can compete, compete. If you think it's just 
too hard,
>> then
>> either just cash it in now, or take a real close look at what 
you believe
>> and ask yourself whether it is consistent with your ending up 
where you
>> want
>> to be in life.

>> Sorry for the length, but this thread has been driving me up the 
wall. All
>> the bellyaching: "This is hard because I'm blind." "That sucks 
because I'm
>> blind." A lot of things suck about being blind. A lot of things 
also suck
>> about being stupid, disorganized, or lazy; having cancer or 
having one
>> leg;
>> or growing old and dying. That. is. life!

>> Fortunately, we in the NFB are working together to make things 
less
>> difficult, and through our collective work we have built, and 
continue to
>> build, a brighter future for all blind people. I will, however, 
assure you
>> that none of our progress was ever attained by requesting a 
waiver.

>> Sean


>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
info for
>> nabs-l:
>> 
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman.
lists%40gmail.com


>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
for nabs-l:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/humbertoa
5369%40netzero.net