[nagdu] Are Training Program Policies Discriminatory? was Talking points for convos with training centers' directors

[Raven Tolliver]

“[M]any people are critical of our positions and have preconceived
notions about our structure but are not involved in the organization
and, as such, their criticism is empty.”

Marion, this argument doesn’t hold up. Being free of membership in
your organization does not make anyone’s argument more or less
logical, or give anyone’s argument more or less merit. Just as easily,
I could assert that because you are an NFB member, you are unable to
view your position objectively. But that would be rather silly for me
to assert since there are NFB members who openly disagree with parts
of the NFB’s philosophy.
If I applied what you said to other organizations, it would be
outrageous. For some examples,
“Many people are critical of the Catholic religion’s positions and
have preconceived notions about their structure but are not involved
in the organization and, as such, their criticism is empty.”
“Many people are critical of the Ku Klux Klan’s positions and have
preconceived notions about their structure but are not involved in the
organization and, as such, their criticism is empty.”
“Many people are critical of the American Medical Association’s
positions and have preconceived notions about their structure but are
not involved in the organization and, as such, their criticism is
empty.”
“Many people are critical of the Department of Justice’s positions and
have preconceived notions about their structure but are not involved
in the organization and, as such, their criticism is empty.”
“Many people are critical of Nazi Germany’s positions and have
preconceived notions about their structure but were not involved in
the organization and, as such, their criticism is empty.”
Such an assertion render all third party validation and objection
illogical or meritless. So because I’m an outsider, I have no room to
talk?
This assertion is used by many, claiming they don’t even need to
defend or provide reasoning for their beliefs or practices because
they have more experience and supposed education, so what could those
with fewer years of experience and less education possibly know? I
have talked to veterinarians, medical doctors, and teachers who rely
on this faulty defense strategy. This claim is a sign of disrespect,
disdain, and derision because it makes several unsupported
assumptions.
More experience means more, more accurate, and more sensible knowledge.
People with more experience are always worth listening to.
Les experience means less, less accurate, and less sensible knowledge.
People with less experience are never worth listening to.
Insiders are correct.
Only insiders have all the facts.
Outsiders are ill-informed.
Outsiders have inaccurate information.
Essentially, outsiders have inferior and meritless opinions, and only
insiders have superior and the most accurate opinions.
It appears that the superiority complex within the NFB extends far
beyond cane users vs. guide dog travelers.

Here’s you again:
“[M]ost on this list are not members. They take advantage of our
assets without any investment in the organization. They are more than
happy to talk about their rights but refuse to exercise
responsibility. There are not rights without concomitant
responsibilities.”
If you find issue with people “taking advantage” of the benefits the
organization offers without investing in the organization, then charge
them or set up an ultimatum. Charge them fees or request equal
services for all or any offered assistance. That is what many people
do when they would like something in return for the services they
provide. They either ask for money, or request the party they’re
helping to return the favor with a service relatively equal in value.
If you feel that you as an NFB member or the whole NFB organization is
owed something or being taken advantage of, then make such an
agreement with the nonmembers you serve.
Also, not participating in or not paying the NFB says nothing of a
person’s level of responsibility or appreciation for their rights. The
NFB is not the only avenue for advocating for, defending, and
educating the public about one’s rights as a blind person. The people
who use free services offered by the NFB owe the NFB nothing and are
not obligated to return any favors. Perhaps some of them feel that
they must return the favor, and that is great. But to look down on
nonmembers who benefit from the NFB’s programs and services is to
essentially call those people inferior, lazy, and ungrateful.
Undermining people and inviting them to join your organization
screams: “You’re a more educated, more accurate, more responsible
blind person if you join us.” Because as you’ve already explained,
nonmembers’ arguments rely on misinformation, so they do not hold
logic or merit.
I don’t know how you arrived at that conclusion, but it doesn’t make sense.
-- 
Raven
Founder of 1AM Editing & Research
www.1am-editing.com

You are valuable because of your potential, not because of what you
have or what you do.

Naturally-reared guide dogs
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/nrguidedogs

On 9/4/15, Marion Gwizdala via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Marianne,
>
> 	Since membership in an affiliate division constitutes membership in NAGD
> and you are a member of the Ohio Association of Guide dog users, you are a
> member of NAGDU. My point in the message I sent was not that one must be a
> member of NAGDU to participate in our programs; rather, it was to make the
> point that many people are critical of our positions and have preconceived
> notions about our structure but are not involved in the organization and, as
> such, their criticism is empty. Membership has its priveleges, as American
> Express asserts. The privilege of membership in NAGDU is to speak on the
> floor, vote, and hold office. We give anyone wishing to have their voice
> heard the opportunity to do so on this list; however, most on this list are
> not members. They take advantage of our assets without any investment in the
> organization. They are more than happy to talk about their rights but refuse
> to exercise responsibility. There are not rights without concomitant
> responsibilities.
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala