[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

[Marc Workman]

Hello Jedi,

Jedi wrote,
i think it is fair to say that the membership of our organization certainly reflects the variety of individuals in the U,S, generally. for that reason, it is definitely worth saying that Sean's take on NFB philosophy is as individual to him as it is to anyone's.

If every individual member of NFB gets to define NFB philosophy, then there is no philosophy. It seems to me that an elected leader of an organization is given a mandate to speak on behalf of that organization and articulate to others what the organization stands for, no?

Jedi wrote,
Furthermore, I think that sean's ideas about the role of universal design reflects sean himself and his own values generally. But I think it is unfair to say that he doesn't consider others' views and needs. And though you're correct to say that his position on the social grid may affect his level of awareness of certain issues, it is not correct to assume that he has not made himself aware through various means or that he altogether does not consider the needs and issues of others.

This is why I pull direct quotes from the messages of others. I don't know what I said that made you interpret my words in this way. I did say that it is easier to say "just accept it and move on" from a place of privilege. I didn't say that Sean doesn't consider the needs of others. I think it's beneficial to keep in mind the privileged position that I would argue virtually everyone on this list is in, and that's all I was trying to encourage.

Jedi wrote,
As to the overall discussion of universal design within the organization, I think it really varies. Some people are more interested in environmental access issues than others. And I also think the organizations views overall on the matter have changed and are changing because our world is changing and has changed over time.

Arielle made a similar claim about a change. Perhaps it's true. I'm not sure what the evidence is. It was suggested that we check out the 2012 resolutions. I did listen to them during convention, but I don't recall them well. I do recall both the XBox one and the Apple one, and if you listen to the debate on these ones, it doesn't sound like the organization is pushing for products to be universally design.

Jedi wrote,
As for me, I think most things in life are already accessible to me as a blind person as they are. Yes, it took some training for me to make that happen. but it wasn't like it took years and years of training.

Is the training not something like nine months? That seems like a lot to me. A sufficiently motivated student could get a masters degree in that time. It's great that such training was available to you and that you had the time to be able to go. My guess is that not everyone will have that kind of time. I'm thinking it would be difficult for a 40-year old single mother, no high school education, with three kids in a poor neighbourhood of Detroit to be able to leave her children in order to go to Blind Inc. Maybe I'm wrong about this though. Seems like it would be much harder to me. If things can be designed in such a way that a person without nine months of intensive training can function pretty much the same as someone with that training, then we probably ought to push for that in my opinion.

Jedi wrote,
Though my training covered specific types of barriers and how to overcome them, much of my training was spent convincing myself through multiple trials and mentoring that I have the creativity and wherewithall to adapt to my world for the most part. And I think that's part of the problem. Many of us in the blindness community (including the professionals who serve us) believe that we blind (the average blind) don't have that wherewithall. I don't think that's correct and seriously underestimates what we can do for ourselves in a variety of life areas, not just in this particular domain.

I completely agree that underestimating one's abilities is often what prevents one from accomplishing a task that he or she could otherwise accomplish. Where perhaps we disagree is that I do not think it is solely underestimation 100% of the time. Some people do lack the creativity and wherewithal. It may not be because of blindness alone, but because of blindness couple with a variety of other factors, but as I said, I think it's important to design for such people, and not just those who do possess the creativity and wherewithal but who don't realize they do.

Jedi wrote,
And frankly, many universal design ideas come with the notion that blindness makes it difficult for an individual to make sense of their environment because of the lack of sight alone.

Actual examples here would be useful. I can't agree or disagree because I don't know what you have in mind.

Jedi wrote,
Now before you get all hot and bothered by thinking that I'm against universal design,

There are a lot of things that get me hot and bothered, but one's opposing universal design is fortunately not one of them.

Jedi wrote,
 let me say that I do support including universal design in technology such as kiosks, e-book readers, computers, point of sale terminals, etc. These are devices included in daily life that really do present a challenge to us.

That's right, I think most in the NFB will support calling for changes when there is no workaround, when there's no practical way to access the product or service. I think that's setting the threshold too high. If making a change is done to make things easier, or to assist those who lack the training, the creativity, the wherewithal, etc, then the change seems not only not to be supported, but actively to be opposed, often on the grounds that we can manage without the change or people will think less of us if the change is made. I find neither reason for actively opposing such changes convincing.

Jedi wrote,
I also support accessible pedestrian signals where they would be helpful, but not at every damn block!

Helpful for whom? for you? And if I do genuinely find them helpful at every damn block, will you actively oppose my efforts to get them installed?

Jedi wrote,
Video description? Sure. Accessible currency? Sure. Do I think not having video description or accessible currency is discriminatory? No, not necessarily.

Saying "not necessarily" implies that it might or might not be discriminatory. I would be interested in knowing in what cases and on what grounds it would or would not be discriminatory.

Jedi wrote,
 And that's partially what I think Sean means when he says that there's a huge difference between moving on and whining. Blind folks have gotten along without descriptions and bumps on money for some time without too much trouble.

Define "gotten along". Statistics about blindness, as I read them at least, suggest that we're not getting along all that well. But assuming we have, we also got along before Target created a website and before the Kindle was released. I want full and equal access. Getting along is not good enough. If wanting nothing less than equal access to all the goods and benefits of society makes me a whiner, then a whiner I am.

Jedi wrote,
All this is to say that universal design really does help me as a blind person, but I don't support design features that presume I can't think or do for myself. I'd much rather prefer that the money spent on unnecessary features gets spent on training blind people or on developing accessibility features that can be taylored to the needs of various individuals without annoying others.

The mistake I think you're making is in taking it as a comment on you specifically. The presumption isn't about whether you can or cannot think and do for yourself. It's not about you. It's about designing things in such a way that even those who can't think and do as well as you are still able to participate in and enjoy the benefits of society. You call them "unnecessary features", and again I ask, unnecessary for whom?

I'm not sure what you mean regarding tailoring accessibility features to the needs of individuals without annoying others. Let's say I'm pretty good at estimating what floor an elevator has stopped at, and I can't stand those annoying beeps, perhaps I should lobby to change things up so that you have to carry a small earpiece around with you that will beep for you and you alone.

This hypothetical case gets at my main point. It would be one thing for me to ignore the beeps, to go to a training centre for nine months learning how to live without the beeps. This would even put me in a better position because I could manage my way more conveniently in buildings without beeping elevators. I might even be more employable because of my ability to get along without beeps. I could try to convince you that you too can learn to live without the beeps, explain all the advantages, tell you how useful the training was, but for me to actively try to prevent people who find the beeps useful from having them installed in more elevators just because I don't need them, because sighted people find them annoying, and because it *might* cause people to have a negative view about me... that just strikes me as wrong.

Cheers,

Marc

On 2012-07-21, at 6:36 PM, Jedi wrote:

> Marc,
> 
> You're right that some of our NFB philosophy does reflect values generally held in American society. Wether these are right or wrong doesn't matter to me in this very instant, but i think it is fair to say that the membership of our organization certainly reflects the variety of individuals in the U,S, generally. for that reason, it is definitely worth saying that Sean's take on NFB philosophy is as individual to him as it is to anyone's. Furthermore, I think that sean's ideas about the role of universal design reflects sean himself and his own values generally. But I think it is unfair to say that he doesn't consider others' views and needs. And though you're correct to say that his position on the social grid may affect his level of awareness of certain issues, it is not correct to assume that he has not made himself aware through various means or that he altogether does not consider the needs and issues of others.
> 
> As to the overall discussion of universal design within the organization, I think it really varies. Some people are more interested in environmental access issues than others. And I also think the organizations views overall on the matter have changed and are changing because our world is changing and has changed over time.
> 
> Here's my take on universal design. I think it's a great idea in theory, but its application gets messed up by, especially in the case of blindness, what various groups and individuals think we blind need and don't need. And I think much of this need is determined by the barriers various people think are imposed by blindness. As for me, I think most things in life are already accessible to me as a blind person as they are. Yes, it took some training for me to make that happen. but it wasn't like it took years and years of training. Though my training covered specific types of barriers and how to overcome them, much of my training was spent convincing myself through multiple trials and mentoring that I have the creativity and wherewithall to adapt to my world for the most part. And I think that's part of the problem. Many of us in the blindness community (including the professionals who serve us) believe that we blind (the average blind) don't have that wherewithall. I don't think that's correct and seriously underestimates what we can do for ourselves in a variety of life areas, not just in this particular domain. And frankly, many universal design ideas come with the notion that blindness makes it difficult for an individual to make sense of their environment because of the lack of sight alone.
> 
> Now before you get all hot and bothered by thinking that I'm against universal design, let me say that I do support including universal design in technology such as kiosks, e-book readers, computers, point of sale terminals, etc. These are devices included in daily life that really do present a challenge to us. Yes, we could overcome this barrier by shopping elsewhere, by getting help when necessary, by getting our consumables from firms who don't use inaccessible technology, etc. But that's kind of ridiculous in my view. The technology's there. Companies such as Apple have proven that, when designed from the ground up, accessible technology doesn't constitute a huge financial hardship. I also support accessible pedestrian signals where they would be helpful, but not at every damn block! Video description? Sure. Accessible currency? Sure. Do I think not having video description or accessible currency is discriminatory? No, not necessarily. And that's partially what I think Sean means when he says that there's a huge difference between moving on and whining. Blind folks have gotten along without descriptions and bumps on money for some time without too much trouble. We've even developed some of our own tools and means for getting around these problems. But does that mean we're fundamentally against these new accessibility features? Of course not! I acknowledge, and so do others sharing views similar to mine, that these features do make our lives a littel more convenient, and that's not necessarily a bad thing so long as we can still adapt to situations where these conveniences are not yet available. And there really are some barriers that universal design helps with. I think of braille signs. I can't tell which bathroom is which without going in and finding out the hard way. I can't tell which room is which unless I ask people in these rooms or near them. Braille signs help me overcome these barriers. Without a beep or a voice telling me which floor I'm on, I wouldn't know unless I had some way of counting them as the elevator rises or if I get out of the elevator and find out through exploration. By then, the elevator's gone if it's not the floor I want and I have to catch the next one. But if it doesn't beep or something telling me whether or not the thing is going up or down, I guess I'll have to find out the hard way. All this is to say that universal design really does help me as a blind person, but I don't support design features that presume I can't think or do for myself. I'd much rather prefer that the money spent on unnecessary features gets spent on training blind people or on developing accessibility features that can be taylored to the needs of various individuals without annoying others.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Jedi
> 
> 
> REspectfully,
> Jedi
> 
> Original message:
>> Hello Sean,
> 
>> As I was reading, I was wondering why the emphasis was entirely on attitudes with no mention of physical/design barriers, and then I get to the last point and realize why. The barriers aren't the problem, it's our failure to simply accept them and move on that's the problem.
> 
>> Sean wrote,
>>> we can choose to accept it and move on, or we can wallow and wine that things aren't fair.
> 
>> Or, a third option, we can do something to change what isn't fair, call something an injustice when it's an injustice and do something to eliminate it.
> 
>> We've had similar discussions before, so I don't expect to change your mind, but maybe someone else will be persuaded, and I'm not all that tired anyway.. I will say that I think you do reflect a common attitude that partly constitutes NFB philosophy, and it's probably the one aspect of this philosophy that I think is mistaken.
> 
>> I think I get it — the whole pull yourself up by the bootstraps attitude (very American) — there's value in that, but I think it tends to come from a place of privilege. Going out on a dangerous limb, Sean, guessing white, male, middle class, well educated, heterosexual, no other significant physical or psychological variations. Even if I'm completely wrong on most of this, I can tell you're well educated and intelligent. My point is only that it is easier to say we should just suck it up and move on from such a place of relative privilege. The danger of just sucking it up and moving on is that you might not be as motivated to change things to help out those who aren't able to suck it up and move on. Personally, I'm aiming for a world that's as inclusive and accessible as possible to all blind people, not just the creative, educated ones. So if there's a barrier that I myself can get around, that won't stop me from pointing it out and trying to eliminate it. Simply going around it, however, makes me more likely not to think about it and consequently not to do anything about it.
> 
>> There is value in providing blind people with tools for dealing with injustice and encouraging them to use these tools. We live in an unjust world. What I reject is the false dichotomy of either accepting the injustice or whining about it. We can and should not simply "accept it and move on", but actively work to eliminate injustice where ever we find it.
> 
>> Regards,
> 
>> Marc
>> On 2012-07-17, at 11:38 PM, <nabs.president at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Tyler,
> 
> 
> 
>>> Fair question. And while I do not claim to speak for everybody, and, in
>>> fact, believe that there is no one great truth or philosophy about
>>> blindness, do believe that there is a positive and realistic way of thinking
>>> about blindness and all that it entails that is referred to as NFB
>>> philosophy. I happen to subscribe to it, though I, as I have stated before,
>>> do not agree 100% with everything the NFB does or says. Claiming to embrace
>>> this philosophy no more relinquishes my claim on independent thought than
>>> does subscribing to any point of view on any other issue. So, to boil it
>>> down into a few key points, here is my take on what the NFB philosophy on
>>> blindness is:
> 
> 
> 
>>> 1)      Blindness need not prohibit one from leading a meaningful,
>>> productive and fulfilling life.
> 
> 
> 
>>> 2)      While blindness surely presents certain difficulties, frustrations
>>> and inconveniences, the perception of blind persons among the general public
>>> and the associated chronic underestimation of the abilities of blind
>>> individuals causes more problems than anything inherent to blindness itself.
> 
> 
> 
>>> 3)      Blindness, rather than defining who I am, is but one characteristic
>>> I possess. A characteristic with a greater impact on my life than the fact,
>>> say, that I have brown hair, but a characteristic nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
>>> 4)      By employing blindness skills, and when given the opportunity to do
>>> so, average blind folks can do the vast majority of jobs, and participate in
>>> the vast majority of pastimes,  that average sighted folks can. By
>>> extension, exceptionally bright, hard-working, or otherwise gifted blind
>>> individuals can do the things that exceptional sighted folks can do.
> 
> 
> 
>>> And, though I wouldn't list it as a belief at the core of how I view
>>> blindness, I think it's worth saying:
> 
> 
> 
>>> Sometimes, we, as blind people, need to be willing to go the extra mile to
>>> get things done. Should things be designed for universal access? Absolutely.
>>> Is it fair that I have to spend extra time scanning my books while my
>>> sighted peers do not? No, it's not. However, in full recognition that there
>>> are strong and persuasive moral, and probably practical, arguments for
>>> remedying the status quo, we must recognize that the world and life are not
>>> fair. Sometimes I'll have to work harder than the guy next to me to
>>> accomplish the same thing. But, sometimes, the guy next to me will have to
>>> work harder than me to compensate for some shortcoming of his own. That's
>>> life, and we can choose to accept it and move on, or we can wallow and wine
>>> that things aren't fair. We've all got obstacles to overcome, and, for me,
>>> being blind happens to be one of them.
> 
> 
> 
>>> I hope that all makes some sense. I would be curious to hear what others
>>> think about the question. It is a good one and worth reflection and
>>> discussion.
> 
> 
> 
>>> Take care,
> 
> 
> 
>>> Sean
> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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