[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

[Marc Workman]

Hello Justin, Arielle, and others,

I warn you at the outset that this is a very long message. I don't want to discourage anyone from reading, it's also very good, but if you're not interested in philosophy, Jacobus tenBroek, or obnoxious and demeaning birds, then this isn't for you.

Justin wrote,
Of course we, in the Federation, fight to break down the barriers.  Why do you think we do legislative lobbying?  Washington Seminar is an absolutely amazing experience, and you should try it!  We honor adaptability because there's no sense in being helpless in the meantime while we work on those barriers.

I don't think I said that the NFB does not fight to break down barriers. I've attended convention once, and I listened to nearly all of this year's convention. The organization does incredible work, no doubt about that.

I think my message contained three concerns:

1. No mention in Sean's account of NFB philosophy of the importance of removing physical barriers.

2. The suggestion that we have two options: "we can choose to accept it and move on, or we can wallow and wine that things aren't fair."

3. The concern that finding workarounds or adapting makes us less likely to put as much effort into removing the barrier.

The first two could be attributed to writing hastily or not stating things quite right. That's fine, and if that's the case, then I shouldn't have said anything. I think, though, that there is a deeper sentiment behind what Sean wrote, an actual disagreement between my position and that of NFB philosophy, which I'll try to spell out below, after a housekeeping point.

Justin wrote,
Lastly, I've made comments like "i've had this conversation with you before" in a public manner to other people-trust me, I have-but I've realized in retrospect that it only creates distance between everyone who hears me and myself.  A lot of people take that as an implied personal attack.  I'm not saying Sean took it that way, but I'm sure plenty of people did read it that way.

A fair point. I meant no disrespect to Sean. I have tremendous respect for Sean and other NABS leaders and members. I've been on this list for a while, though, and we have actually had similar discussions in the past multiple times, but my thinking on the matter has deepened every time, so I did not intend to imply annoyance or frustration, even though I recognize it came across that way.

Arielle wrote,
However, though we are committed to doing what we can to promote universal access for blind people, we also are aware that, realistically, it will take time for all those in power to make it happen. In the meantime, we are also working to help blind individuals figure out how to adapt to those barriers we are not yet able to control. For example, we will fight
for full access to educational technology, but instead of waiting to enroll in college until this access happens, we will also work to harness the support of human readers and other adaptations so that we
can still be successful in spite of these barriers. In other words, instead of pitting individual adaptation and universal design against each other as mutually exclusive options, why not take a dual approach toward both of these goals?

To respond first to the question at the end, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I would argue that there is at least a tension between them though. If a problem is only a problem for a few blind people, the others having learned to deal with it, I think it's less likely that the majority is going to be as interested in trying to remove that problem. I have no empirical evidence to back up this claim. It seems like common sense to me.

Now I'm not saying that we should stop trying to teach that majority to deal with that problem. I'm saying that, when making decisions about policy, when advocating for various positions, we shouldn't ignore that minority. The goal should be to design a world in which blind people can get about without first having to spend nine months to a year working full time on blindness training. If you can get that sort of training, that's great. I wish programs like that were available in Canada. However, I believe we should advocate for a world where such extensive training is not necessary. My reason for thinking this is that not everyone is going to be capable of receiving and benefitting from such training. Moreover, I believe, as a general principle, in universal design, which means designing things in such a way that as little special training and as few tools as possible are required. I don't think the NFB, in the recent past, has held this position.

I do think, however, that tenBroek articulates a position along these lines in "The Right to Live in the World".
http://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/law/therighttoliveintheworldthedisabledinthelawoftorts.html

But it would take me a while to fully spell out my reasons for thinking that. I'll just quote a couple of passages and leave the fuller explanation for another day.

"Simply declaring that the disabled, too, have rights of access and use and forbidding building operators to deny them would do little for the wheel chair-bound paraplegic physically denied access to and use of flights of stairs and narrow doorways. Moreover, prohibiting the installation of such barriers would not do the trick. A more constructive and affirmative approach is required. Buildings and facilities must be erected according to a design taking account of the disabled and making buildings and facilities accessible to them and functional for them."

So it's not just a prohibition against denying a person the right to enter a building, nor is it a matter of simply not building barriers, what tenBroek advocates is building things in a way that makes them accessible to disabled people and functional for them. I would argue, too, that tenBroek would not have included the caveat: accessible to them and functional for them, assuming they are sufficiently trained in the skills of blindness. Here is another passage.

"Apparently, thus, in England, despite the talk about bringing the law up to date, the street- tampering defendant is entitled to assume that blind pedestrians will be trained in the use of a cane which they will carry, and that a light, moveable, rail fence will be detected by the cane user in time for him to stop. The holding of the Haley case goes no further than the facts of the case require; not nearly as far as the facts of life require. Only a minor fraction of the blind are trained and skillful in the use of the cane; a somewhat larger percentage, but still very small, use canes. What about the rest? Are they condemned to a life of ostracism? 'One is entitled to expect of a blind person,' said Lord Reid in the Haley case, 'a high degree of skill and care because none but the most foolhardy would venture to go out alone without having that skill and exercising that care.'"

I'm sure that tenBroek would have approved of increasing the percentage of blind people who are trained with a cane, but I suspect he would have encourage policy makers, courts, designers, etc not simply to assume that all blind people will be so trained. The right to live in the world, I'm suggesting, is not and should not be limited only to those who have received proper training.

Arielle said that NFB increasingly takes the approach of promoting individual coping while advocating for the removal of barriers. I'm not sure I've seen enough to call it a trend, but it was interesting to hear what sounded to me like a softening of NFB's position on accessible pedestrian signals during Lauren McLarney speech to the general session. Here's the exact quote.

> "What we're trying to do is make sure that if audible pedestrian signals are meant to make audible output for blind people... that those sounds are not demeaning, they're not birds chirping, there's not obnoxious beeping, that it's reasonable, and it says `walk' or `don't walk'"."

There now at least seems to be the acceptance that these signals can be useful. The concern now is that the standard sounds are obnoxious and demeaning. I think that's progress from 2003, where the NFB position was that, and I'm quoting again,

"Audible traffic signals are in many instances a disadvantage because they add so much noise pollution to the environment that listening to traffic becomes difficult. However, they may be installed at complex intersections where they will assist in the comprehension of complex traffic patterns."
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm03/bm0301/bm030102.htm

I've never heard signals that were so loud as to drown out traffic, and when they are that loud, they're clearly badly designed. They're also not useful only in cases where traffic patterns are complex, unless heavy north-south traffic and light east-west traffic and vice versa is counted as complex. And if that is complex, that covers quite a few intersections around me.

Again, though, the underlying position seemed to be: a properly trained blind person can cross streets just fine, so don't bother installing those signals that might make crossing streets safer for some blind people, especially because, quoting again,

"It is dangerous to ask for modifications to the environment that we do not need, and it leads to an impression that blind people lack competence."
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm03/bm0301/bm030102.htm

What counts as needed or not is going to depend very much on a variety of factors, previous training, creativeness, intelligence, presence or absence of other disabilities, and so on, and when advocating, the threshold for something's not being necessary should be set very high. I would also say that the response to misunderstandings about the installation of APSs should be met with campaigns to educate the public, rather than with refusing potentially useful changes to the environment on the grounds that some people might misinterpret why those changes were made.

I hope I've been able to articulate the different views about individual and environmental adaptation and why I hold one and not the other.

For anyone still reading, good for you. I probably would have hit delete a while back.

Cheers,

Marc
On 2012-07-19, at 10:12 PM, Arielle Silverman wrote:

> Hi all,
> I think Sean's description of "NFB philosophy" as he sees it was
> excellent. I would also add two things:
> 1. I don't think the NFB has a patent on this philosophy. In fact, I
> would argue that most committed ACB members and many other successful
> blind people who choose not to affiliate with organizations also
> espouse the positive philosophy of blindness that Sean described. The
> NFB has chosen to make this philosophy a central focus, but that does
> not mean that non-NFB members cannot live by it themselves or
> encourage others to accept it. It is important to remember that the
> ACB split off from the NFB, and although I am not an expert on what
> happened, everything I've read about the split suggests that it
> occurred because of disagreements about how leadership in the
> organization should be structured, not about fundamental philosophy of
> blindness. In more recent years the NFB and ACB have taken differing
> approaches to some policy issues, but that does not necessarily mean
> that their core philosophies of blindness are at odds. I don't think
> the two organizations should merge into one super-organization of
> blind Americans because I like the fact that individuals have choices
> about which organization to join and that there's not one big group
> monopolizing the organizational stage. But I also think that the NFB
> and ACB have more in common in terms of their goals for changing what
> it means to be blind than we might think on first glance.
> 
> 2. To address Marc's point about universal design: In the nine years I
> have been a part of the NFB, I have observed that the NFB increasingly
> takes a pragmatic dualistic approach to promoting both individual
> coping with accessibility barriers and advocacy to bring them down. I
> would urge you to read the NFB 2012 resolutions once they become
> available online, and you will find that most of these resolutions
> address access barriers in one form or another and advocate for their
> removal. I believe the NFB is moving further in the direction of
> pushing for accessibility and I have seen change on this front even
> since the time when I first joined nine years ago. However, though we
> are committed to doing what we can to promote universal access for
> blind people, we also are aware that, realistically, it will take time
> for all those in power to make it happen. In the meantime, we are also
> working to help blind individuals figure out how to adapt to those
> barriers we are not yet able to control. For example, we will fight
> for full access to educational technology, but instead of waiting to
> enroll in college until this access happens, we will also work to
> harness the support of human readers and other adaptations so that we
> can still be successful in spite of these barriers. In other words,
> instead of pitting individual adaptation and universal design against
> each other as mutually exclusive options, why not take a dual approach
> toward both of these goals?
> Arielle
> 
> On 7/19/12, Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu> wrote:
>> I have a few notes for a few different people on this thread.
>> 
>> Tyler:
>> I understand the hesitancy about getting involved when you don't fully agree
>> with everything that everyone else believes.  I once had that hesitation
>> about getting involved with organized religion.  I started going to a campus
>> ministry at my college because a friend sold me on the free dinner, and I
>> quickly learned that no church is homogenous in beliefs.  In some churches,
>> the leadership will try like mad to perpetuate the idea that everyone in the
>> church believes exactly what they do and that anyone who disagrees slightly
>> is against them.  In my church, we aren't like that, and we understand that
>> people have differing views.  We unite under the idea that it's okay to
>> disagree on individual issues and discuss them, but we have generally the
>> same core beliefs.
>> That's how we are in the Federation.  If you don't agree with something
>> we're doing, I'll make an effort to help you come to terms with it because
>> that's my individual personality.  I often find that, when someone disagrees
>> with something we're doing, it is because of a lack of understanding of what
>> we're doing or the underlying issue.  At the end of the day, I won't shun
>> you.
>> 
>> Marc Workman:
>> Of course we, in the Federation, fight to break down the barriers.  Why do
>> you think we do legislative lobbying?  Washington Seminar is an absolutely
>> amazing experience, and you should try it!  We honor adaptability because
>> there's no sense in being helpless in the meantime while we work on those
>> barriers.
>> On the mention of Sean's place in social stratification:  I am a colored
>> person, I'm the first person in my family to go to college, and I don't
>> bother wallowing in the lack of advantage that I face because of it.  Quite
>> frankly, I'm not even convinced that I am disadvantaged by being a colored
>> person.  With the first generation college student part, I have to seek
>> mentors in the academic process from outside my family, and I know many,
>> many educated Federationists who have eagerly fulfilled that role for me.
>> Lastly, I've made comments like "i've had this conversation with you before"
>> in a public manner to other people-trust me, I have-but I've realized in
>> retrospect that it only creates distance between everyone who hears me and
>> myself.  A lot of people take that as an implied personal attack.  I'm not
>> saying Sean took it that way, but I'm sure plenty of people did read it that
>> way.
>> 
>> Brandon Keith Biggs, I loved reading this part of your email:
>> In my book, there is no larger crime than depriving someone of their dreams
>> and the second biggest crime is taking away the chance for people to reach
>> for those dreams. For while there are dreams, there is hope. With hope life
>> always has enough energy to turn the corner and keep going.  The NFB to me
>> is that hope and the rock and refuge that is always there for me if I need
>> it.
>> 
>> Yours in Federationism,
>> 
>> Justin Salisbury
>> 
>> Justin M. Salisbury
>> Class of 2012
>> B.A. in Mathematics
>> East Carolina University
>> president at alumni.ecu.edu
>> 
>> “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
>> the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”    —MARGARET MEAD
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nabs-l:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman.lists%40gmail.com