[nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls

Gloria Whipple ladygloria at webband.com
Wed Apr 13 18:57:19 UTC 2011


Ryan,

I like your friends and what they had to say.

I hate political corrections!

Thanks for sharing!


Gloria Whipple
Corresponding Secretary
Inland Empire chapter
nfb of WA


-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Ryan O
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:37
To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
Subject: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls

Hi all. The recent name change of Recordings For the Blind and Dyslexic has
fostered a very interesting debate on a friend's facebook page. It put me in
mind of a speech by Dr. Jernigan some years ago. I decided to post some of
the debate here and see what others think.

I will begin by posting the release from RFB&D, followed by some random
comments from my friend's Facebook page. Since I am posting the comments
without the permission of the various authors, I am changing their name.

Here is the press release from RFB&D.

Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic - Learning Ally For Blind Students
 April 12th, 2011
Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D), a 63-year old nonprofit
organization serving over 300,000 individuals across the U.S. with learning
differences and reading disabilities, announced that it has officially
changed its name to Learning AllyT- effective April 11, 2011.

The new name is accompanied by a tagline - Making reading accessible for
allT - and was selected after months of research and focus groups were
conducted with hundreds of RFB&D student members, parents, volunteers,
education professionals and other stakeholders.

"Changing the name of a long-established national institution such as RFB&D
is not something we entered into lightly," says Andrew Friedman, Learning
Ally's President and CEO. "Our members themselves were the key driver of
this transformation. For one thing, our mix of users today includes
individuals with diverse learning differences that are outside the scope of
our former name.

"Most important of all," adds Friedman, "our members have expressed loud and
clear that they don't wish to be labeled or typecast with a specific
'disability.' They just want the same opportunities to succeed that others
enjoy. Our new name goes to the heart of supporting their desire to learn
and achieve."

Background: Recording for the Blind was founded in 1948, with a mission to
provide equal access to the printed word for veterans and others with
blindness and visual impairment. Early volunteers recorded textbooks onto
vinyl discs and tape reels. During the 1990s, RFB extended its mission to
include access for people with dyslexia and learning disabilities, and
changed its name to RFB&D. As its library grew to become the largest of its
kind in the world, RFB&D made audiobooks accessible on cassettes, CDs and
downloadable formats with extensive navigation capabilities for students
with reading disabilities. Users accessed their books with specialized
assistive technology devices from a variety of vendors.

In 2010, RFB&D embraced the latest mainstream technology, making its content
accessible on Mac and Windows computers for users at home or in school. And
in February 2011, a new application was released enabling its entire library
of downloadable audiobooks to be played on Apple iOS devices including the
iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. All of this is good news for the widening base
of students, parents, teachers and schools that Learning Ally serves.

"We truly cherish the values of our founders and stand on the solid
foundation built by countless RFB&D volunteers and donors," says Andrew
Friedman. Today we recognize that as many as one in five individuals learn
differently. Now as Learning Ally, we continue to support our blind and
dyslexic members, while positioning the organization to be even more
inclusive - as an advocate and friend to people for whom access and reading
are barriers to learning."

About Learning AllyT

Founded in 1948 as Recording for the Blind, Learning Ally serves more than
300,000 K-12, college and graduate students, as well as veterans and
lifelong learners - all of whom cannot read standard print due to blindness,
visual impairment, dyslexia, or other learning disabilities. Learning Ally's
collection of more than 65,000 digitally recorded textbooks and literature
titles - delivered through internet downloads and various assistive
technology devices - is the largest of its kind in the world. More than
6,000 volunteers across the U.S. help to record and process the educational
materials, which students rely on to achieve academic and professional
success. Learning Ally, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is funded by grants from the
U.S. Department of Education, state and local education programs, and the
generous contributions of individuals, foundations and corporations. For
more information, call (866) 732-3585 or visit http://www.LearningAlly.org. 

>From Facebook:

Starbuck
cannot believe that RFB&D is changing their name to, "Learning Ally." Stupid
politically correct society!

Weatherman
Politically correct or just shorter to say?

Starbuck
Based on their own article about it, I'd say PC. They took a very roundabout
way of saying they don't like to place labels on people. The B and D in this
case standing for blind and dyslexic.

Weatherman
Really? Racial slurs are ok then? Sexist remarks are perfectly acceptable?
PC can definitely go overboard and I always advocate clarity in
communication, but I think individual groups have a right to decide how
they'd like to be addressed or described.

Starbuck
I dont' think either Dana or I are saying that racist/sexist remarks are all
right. But when we get so very touchy about offending someone, it goes
overboard. People in today's society are afraid to use the word, "blind,"
for example. I can't tell you the amount of euphimisms I've heard for that.
When I refer to someone as being black, rather than "African American," God
knows I'm not trying to put them down. Racism makes me angry, to put it
mildly. But it seems our society is so very afraid of stepping on toes now
that we've swung to the other extreme of what you're saying.

Weatherman
I agree with you Alicia, and perhaps "we" have swung to far. I was probably
causing a bit of trouble :). I just don't think being PC should be outlawed.
It is rooted in something quite sensible.

Hieronymus Bosch
Weatherman, you are right in the fact that pc was probably rooted in good
intentions. But what is it they say about the road to hell...

Starbuck and I are all too familiar with political correctness gone to the
extreme. Neither she, or I, or any blind person I've ever heard of or
encountered asked to be called, "visually impaired." Yet, here we are in the
21st century, where every agency and service for the blind uses the term,
"visually impaired." Where did the term come from? I can't answer it, but I
can hazzard an educated guess. The sighted professionals in the
rehabilitation field came up with that term to soften the blow of blindness
upon the public. But I can tell you that the only thing that has changed in
my 30 years of living has been the language used to address our issues.
People are far more careful about what they say and how they say it, but the
careful maneuvering through the minefield of sensitivity only serves to
high-light the fact that the problems still remain.

I'm not a black guy, or gay, or female or a lot of things, but the softening
of the language over the past three decades or so has done nothing to
convince me that political correctness serves as a means to foster any sort
of meaningful form of dialogue between groups. The labels are still there.
they are just a lot more fancy than they used to be.

Perry Mason
Harry, I saw your comment after posting my first one. I don't want to
monopolize this topic but had to respond to it. In my experience, the label
of visually impaired versus blind actually makes a difference. When
interviewing for jobs, or talking with professors about accommodations, the
term visually impaired seems to get you less resistance from them. They seem
to ask fewer questions about how you do X, Y, and Z, and seem to be more
willing to trust you when you explain that you have the situation under
control. Perhaps this is because the term "visually impaired" allows them to
think you have more vision than you do, but whatever the reason, I like the
results. That being said, you know I'm not a fan of our ultra PC society.

Hieronymus Bosch
Perry, you are making my point for me. If your professors are in deed less
resistent to the term, "visually impaired," as opposed to the notion of you
being, "blind," then that speaks more to their discomfort with your
disability as a whole, rather than the phraseology.

Perry Mason
Harry,
I don't think we can separate people's discomfort with a condition from the
way in which it is discussed. The terminology you choose when talking about
traits you have provides important context for others. Specifically, it
helps them interpret the significance and quality of that trait to the
person speaking. This is especially true if the audience has not experienced
the trait in question themselves. Suppose a woman were to say that she was
not slim when discussing her physical appearance. Doesn't that have a
different connotation from obese? And if so, can you be faulted as a
listener for coming to a different set of conclusions about her depending on
the terminology she uses? As a hypothetical, this woman is describing the
exact same body with both sets of phrases. 
You could argue that this means people are more uncomfortable with obesity
than they are with an overweight person. I'm sure that's true to an extent,
but a lot of people don't know what to think before she starts talking. They
have no personal experience with being heavy. Thus, the next thing to do is
to utilize language the speaker chooses as a guide for understanding what
and how she thinks about it. Her thoughts then act as a guide for the ways
in which I should react accordingly. 
I think this is the same with blindness. The word "blind" has a lot of
negative connotation surrounding it, and some of it does not have to do with
disabled people at all. Examples include being blind drunk, being robbed
blind, blindsided, etc. These common expressions do not deal with the
physical condition but are used to discuss crappy events in every day life.
Thus, by using the term "blind", a speaker is associating himself with
negatives, indicating to others that he views his lack of vision as such.
The next logical reaction is to approach the condition with fear and
distrust. 
I therefore conclude that phraseology helps people decide how uncomfortable
to be or not with the actual substantive issues. Granted, it's only one
factor, and we should not use language that entirely hides the plain
realities of life.
Just some food for thought.

Hieronymus Bosch
Perry, once again, you have succeeded in making my point for me. Ironic that
you are employing fanciful wording and logical contortionism to make your
arguments, while all the while high-lighting the real problem. To me, this
is the essence of political correctness. *grin*

Interesting that you use the example of an obese female as a comparison,
since society tends to stigmatize obese women in the same way that it
stigmatizes blind people. A woman may choose to refer to herself as "not
slim," "obese," or "fat," but in the end, the person she is talking to knows
she is overweight, whether he/she is fat or not.

You are correct when you say that the obese woman has no power over the
person's reaction to her self-description, but the cumulative effect of her
condition still has an impact on the person in question. He/she still knows
that this person is overweight, and whether we couch this in harsh or
euphemistic terminology, the end result is the same. The imagery associated
with obesity; ugliness, gluttony, laziness, still lingers. The fat jokes
still remain, but now they are whispered and snickered at privately rather
than being trumpeted in public. No, I can't experience life as a fat lady,
but I can witness the societal evidence around me that indicates that she is
still viewed with contempt.

Life is the same when you are blind. You can contort yourself to more easily
operate within the comfort level of your professor, potential mate or
perspective employer, but in the end, did it make a difference in being
hired whether you used the word, "blind," or "visually impaired?" Most blind
people will answer with a resounding, "no!" That is evidence enough to
illustrate the fact that political correctness has not helped us get where
we need to be.

Perry Mason
Hi Harry,
In your previous message, you wrote something that I want to respond to.
"A woman may choose to refer to herself as "not slim," "obese," or "fat,"
but in the end, the person she is talking to knows she is overweight,
whether he/she is fat or not. This is correct, but the goal was never to
hide her weight issue. It was, instead, to frame it in a less threatening
and negative light. Next, you write: You are correct when you say that the
obese woman has no power over the person's reaction to her self-description,
but the cumulative effect of her condition still has an impact on the person
in question. He/she still knows that this person is overweight, and whether
we couch this in harsh or euphemistic terminology, the end result is the
same." I have to disagree with your conclusion. Your own language indicates
how you feel about yourself. This, in turn, effects how others perceive you
and treat you. So, if a woman says "I'm obese", and another says "I know I'm
overweight or not thin"," they are likely to get different sociological
reactions from their peers and employers. Yes, it's correct that others will
still joke about this physical imperfection. Everything else can be made
into a joke, so obesity doesn't escape that unfortunate fact. There's one
more aspect I wanted to respond to. In the last line of your message, you
talk about jokes being whispered to one another, instead of trumpetted in
public. You seem to say that this, too, winds up with the same cumulative
effect. I'm not sure this is the case either. If someone knows they will get
in hot water by making fat jokes, they will be careful who they say it to.
We still have bullies, but this potentially means that others, who have not
yet made their minds up about how to treat the woman in question won't get
the idea that it's acceptable and socially appropriate to laugh at her.
Instead, she has a better chance of introducing herself, humanizing her and
the condition, and being treated more normally by many people. She will not
convince the prick who would have laughed openly in our non PC society, but
she very well could influence those not contaminated by such drivel if it
was not openly allowed. You may think that people are going to do what they
want, regardless of regulations and any degree of political correctness.
However, people are astoundingly seceptable to peer pressure, even as
adults. In fact, a sociologist conducted an experiment where a person in
authority commanded people to shock a volunteer who made mistakes completing
a task. Each time a mistake was made, the voltage was increased. Even as
high as 320 volts, nearly three quarters of people pushed the button, simply
because someone else said so. Can you imagine this effect if we allowed
jokes about those we perceive as ugly to be trumpetted? It would be like the
Milgram effect on steroids. Can political correctness hide one's condition
and perceived flawes? No it cannot. However, I am of the belief that it does
change the ways others view you and them.

Hieronymus Bosch
Perry, it appears we're going to have to agree to disagree about this issue.
You are approaching it from an idealistic perspective, while I am viewing it
from a more practical standpoint. Your analogy with the electroshock study
is interesting, but ultimately, it only amounts to a hypothetical that can
never be quantified in a social framework.

My original premise was that political correctness has not aided the blind
in our quest to overcome many of the stereotypes facing us. Our staggeringly
and consistently high unemployment rate bolsters my argument. I don't know
what your current employment situation is, but I look forward to revisiting
this debate with you in a decade or so.

Cheers, my friend.


_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40webba
nd.com





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list