[NFB-Talk] civil disobedience question
blind.grizzly at gmail.com
Mon Jan 13 19:19:32 UTC 2020
Just a quick fact check. The NFB did not oppose the ADA. Rather, the NFB
said it would oppose the ADA unless it included a clause that let people
with disabilities opt out of an accommodation. Unfortunately, it's all too
common for many, including other disability rights groups, to ignore what we
blind folks want. The disregard requires us to take some strong positions
in our advocacy. The ADA clause became part of the law, and the NFB
supported the passage of the ADA. This means it's illegal to force a person
with a disability into taking an accommodation. In other words, saying
thanks, but no thanks is a civil right. One example of this would be hotels
placing all customers with disabilities into their accessible rooms. One
should have the right to choose. We all know that perhaps the biggest
barrier blind Americans face is the low expectations of others and
ourselves. Insisting that blind people are whole human beings who can
decide for ourselves is a critical part of the ADA, thanks to the advocacy
of the NFB. I'm proud that the Federation took the stance it did.
blind.grizzly at gmail.com
From: nFB-Talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jack Heim
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 11:28 AM
To: mike at michaelhingson.com; 'NFB Talk Mailing List' <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Jack Heim <john at johnheim.com>; 'Chris Westbrook' <westbchris at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NFB-Talk] civil disobedience question
Okay, I am willing to listen. What do we have today that we wouldn't have if
the NFB hadn't fought for it?
The reason those of us with guide dogs have access to public places has
nothing to do with the NFB. Guide dog schools pre-date the NFB and the NFB
was not supportive of the ADA.
You're missing the point with respect to that essay by Dr. Jernigan. The
point is not that today, most of us would consider his opinion wrong.
Its that the reason he came out against guide dogs was because they
inconvenienced the general public. Dr. Jernigan didn't believe in fighting
for accommodations that would make the general public uncomfortable. Maybe
that's a good thing. Maybe Dr. Jernigan was right and Adapt is wrong.
PS: It is extremely rude for you to accuse me of not having facts in a
message where you do nothing but state your own totally unsubstantiated
opinions. The only one who as actually provided facts here is me.
On 1/13/20 11:50 AM, mike at michaelhingson.com wrote:
> In fact, while you state part of the facts you do not tell the entire
> Dr. Jernigan later acknowledged that he was wrong.
> The NFB has done more toward advocating for the rights of blind
> persons than ANY organization. Best proof is the size of NAGDU both as
> a division as well as the amount of activity on this list.
> No, you are incorrect. The NFB knows ore about advocacy and defending
> our rights than anyone. If you read my earlier contribution to this
> thread you should have seen that even this organization is prepared to
> I will not debate you further except to say that you need to get ALL
> your facts together before making the kind of broad sweeping comments
> you did here.
> Best Regards,
> Michael Hingson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nFB-Talk On Behalf Of Jack Heim via nFB-Talk
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 9:33 AM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Jack Heim <john at johnheim.com>; Chris Westbrook
> <westbchris at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NFB-Talk] civil disobedience question
> You cannot learn anything about advocacy by asking the people on this
> All the people on this list can give you is their personal preferences
> -- which on this list will very much tend toward the conservative. If
> you want to know whether a polite or a confrontational approach to
> protesting works better, you cannot learn that from the people on this
> lis, they don't know anything about advocacy.
> The NFB itself has been extraordinarily conservative over the years.
> In 1995, the Braille Monitor held a debate over the use of guide dogs.
> The extraordinary thing about that issue of the Braille Monitor was an
> essay by Kenneth Jernigan expressing his opinion that guide dogs were
> an unnecessary burden on society. So you can guess what he'd have
> thought of Adapt.
> On 1/13/20 9:10 AM, Chris Westbrook via nFB-Talk wrote:
>> I'm curious to know what my fellow NF members think of something. I
>> am on the board of a local organization here (not NFB or blindness
>> related) and some people from that organization decided to protest
>> lack of wheelchair access by totally disrupting the inauguration
>> ceremony for new politicians, to the point where they were arrested
>> and almost charged with disorderly conduct etc. As you can imagine
>> this has sparked some controversy. I don't want to get in to more
>> detail here as I am on the board and we haven't discussed things yet,
>> but i'm just curious if anyone feels such militant protests are ever
>> justified? I am inclined to say no and definitely not in this
>> specific case for other reasons I won't get into here. This protest
>> was apparently enabled/aided by ADAPT which seems to be a very in
>> your face organization that is bad news in my opinion. It seems to me
>> that such protests can only hurt our cause. I think we must be
>> careful to always behave with dignity and be the adults in the room so to
> Curious what you all think.
>> nFB-Talk mailing list
>> nFB-Talk at nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nFB-Talk mailing list
> nFB-Talk at nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nFB-Talk mailing list
nFB-Talk at nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
More information about the nFB-Talk