[Nfbf-l] Article about NAC from this Month's Braille Monitor

Mon Feb 1 21:14:24 UTC 2016

Hi Marion,
	I have to respectfully disagree with your stance on NAC. The Center
for the Visually Impaired just went through our re-accreditation process. It
took our executive director months to gather all of the required information
in preparation for the NAC team visit. They were with us for 3 days. During
that time they went over all of the information provided and required. They
questioned CVI staff extensively as well as the director. 
	I and the rest of the CVI board had dinner with the accreditation
team while they were in town. I have to say that I was most impressed with
their knowledge, insightful questions, professionality and extensive review.
We are now awaiting their written report.
	All of the light houses in Florida have to be accredited to receive
funding from the Division of Blind Services. I truly believe that the
National Accreditation Council has evolved over the years to the extent that
blind people are given great consideration and respect. The head of NAC is
blind and is a very successful business man and accomplished executive
director. Again, I was most impressed!      

Sincerely,

Kathy Davis

-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbf-l [mailto:nfbf-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
via Nfbf-l
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 12:37 PM
To: 'NFB of Florida Internet Mailing List'
Cc: Marion Gwizdala
Subject: [Nfbf-l] Article about NAC from this Month's Braille Monitor

Dear all,

                Many of our Florida affiliate members wonder why we oppose
the Florida Division of Blind Services' mandatory accreditation by the
national Accreditation Council for blind and Low Vision Services (NAC). In
this month's Braille Monitor, an address by Kenneth Jernigan in 1971 was
reprinted. Though some may say that what was so forty-five years ago is
irrelevant, the reality is that it seems as if nothing has changed. The same
objections to NAC in 1971 still exist. The so-called quality standards to
which NAC presently alludes are no different than they were then. The same
arrogance that NAC knows what is best for the blind still exist. The same
lack of transparency still exists. The same disregard for meaningful
consumer input still exists. 

                I urge each member of the Florida affiliate to read this
article and join our national organization in opposing the contractual
mandate by the Florida Division of Blind Services that accreditation by NAC
be the gateway to funding for community Rehabilitation programs (CRPs) in
the state of Florida.

Fraternally yours,

Marion Gwizdala

NAC: WHAT PRICE ACCREDITATION A Report to National Federation of the Blind
Members on COMSTAC and NAC b y Kenneth Jernigan, President National
Federation of the Blind From the Editor: In the early 1960s the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped was formed, its major purpose being to thwart the legitimate
concerns of consumers by waving the banner of accreditation in defense of
agencies providing poor service to the blind. The battles between NAC and
the Federation are legendary, but to many new Federationists, the reason for
NAC's creation and why we fought its attempts to thwart the will of the
organized blind are the stuff of myth and history, lacking any reality or
the need for action today. The assumption has been that NAC is dead, and the
threat is gone. Would that it were so, but it is not. The state agency for
the blind in Florida requires that any agency for the blind there be
accredited by NAC in order to use state money to provide services to blind
Floridians. The consortium that binds together small service providers for
the blind in the state of Pennsylvania also strongly encourages NAC
accreditation. NAC is actively encouraging guide dog training schools to
affiliate with it, and one prominent school has unfortunately lent its name
and quality services to an accrediting body which is widely frowned upon by
involved and informed blind people. It seems time that we reeducate
ourselves about NAC and prepare once again to demand that any accreditation
be meaningful and that it involve the voice of the organized blind.
Following is a speech delivered by Dr. Kenneth Jernigan in 1971 when he was
the president of the National Federation of the Blind and a member of the
NAC board. This speech has appeared in the pages of the Braille Monitor at
least one other time, that being in 1991, and here is the way Dr. Jernigan
introduced it when he was serving as the editor of this publication. Kenneth
Jernigan's Headnote: I delivered this address at the 1971 convention of the
National Federation of the Blind in Houston. NAC's president and executive
director had come to discuss what NAC was doing and why. My remarks were
meant to set the tone for the debate. In the context of NAC's current
maneuvering I think this 1971 analysis is still pertinent. Here it is: When
the Commission on Standards and Accreditation on Services for the Blind
(COMSTAC) and its successor organization, the National Accreditation Council
for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired (NAC), came into being
during the 1960s, the leaders of the organized blind movement sounded the
alarm. It was pointed out that the American Association of Workers for the
Blind had unsuccessfully tried, during the 1950s, to gain control of the
field of work for the blind by instituting what it called a "seal of good
practices. Of the several hundred agencies and organizations in this country
doing work with the blind only twenty or thirty ever applied for and
received this "seal. Several of those which did were not regarded by the
blind as either very effective or very progressive. As the decade of the
'60s approached, the proponents of rigid agency control apparently decided
to change tactics. The American Foundation for the Blind and certain other
leading agency officials adopted the idea of establishing a so-called
"independent" accrediting system for all groups doing work with the blind.
Although individual blind persons who were agency officials were involved in
the establishment and development of COMSTAC, the blind as a group were not
consulted-that is, the representative organizations of the blind were not
given a voice, except occasionally as a matter of tokenism. Thus, the
consumers of the services were not heard in any meaningful way, and they had
no part in developing or promulgating the standards to govern the agencies
established to give them assistance. Profiting by the earlier failure of the
AAWB [American Association of Workers for the Blind] "seal of good
practices" experiment, the authors of COMSTAC built more carefully. The
American Foundation for the Blind appointed an "independent" commission-the
Commission on Standards and Accreditation for Services for the Blind
(COMSTAC). The full-time staff consultant for COMSTAC was a staff member of
the AFB, on loan to the group, purely as a means of demonstrating the
Foundation's concern with the improvement of services for the blind. To add
respectability, people of prestige outside of the field of work with the
blind were placed on the commission-public officials, business executives,
the dean of the Temple Law School, etc. These were people of good will and
integrity, but they were not knowledgeable concerning the problems of
blindness. Obviously they took their tone and orientation from the
Foundation appointees on COMSTAC. All of these appointees, it must be borne
in mind, were high-ranking officials doing work with the blind. Not one of
them represented the blind themselves. Not one of them came from a
membership organization of blind persons. As its work developed, COMSTAC
divided into subcommittees, involving hundreds of people throughout the
country, since the subcommittees further subdivided into smaller groups.
Again, the pattern was followed. The subcommittees, or the subcommittees of
the subcommittees, had, in every instance, at least one of the COMSTAC
agency officials as a member, plus people of prestige and ordinary rank and
file agency workers or board members. In fact, at the sub-subcommittee level
a few members of the organized blind movement were even added. The American
Foundation for the Blind and COMSTAC were later to proclaim with pride that
they had sought and achieved a broad consensus throughout the field of work
with the blind. However, the method of arriving at that consensus was, to
say the least, novel. At Denver in the summer of 1965, for instance, the
AAWB convention was largely taken up with a discussion of the COMSTAC
standards-to gather opinions and achieve consensus, it was said. Only the
discussion leaders had copies of the standards (there had been a delay in
mimeographing), and any touchy point which was raised was answered either by
the statement that it was covered somewhere else in the COMSTAC standards or
that another group was discussing that matter and it was not properly the
concern of the group in which it had been raised. Home teachers from
throughout the country were present and were considering the standards
affecting their specialty. The overwhelming majority apparently disagreed
with a particular item in the COMSTAC document and suggested that a vote be
taken to determine the sentiments of the group. They were informed by the
discussion leader that a vote certainly would not be taken but that their
views would be reported to COMSTAC, which had the sole responsibility for
deciding such matters. Throughout the summer and fall of 1965 promises were
repeatedly made that copies of the proposed COMSTAC standards would be made
available. They were forthcoming, hundreds of pages of them-three days prior
to the final conference in New York City, which brought together hundreds of
agency representatives for the announced purpose of arriving at a final
consensus. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek and I attended that conference. Again, the
democracy and fair play with which it was conducted were novel. One had to
indicate in writing ahead of time which particular group discussion he would
like to attend. There was no assurance that his choice would be honored. He
might be assigned to another group. He could not move from group to group at
all. If he had not received a special invitation, he could not attend the
meetings. COMSTAC appointees were stationed at the door to check
credentials, and I personally witnessed the turning away of one agency
director who had been critical of COMSTAC. It is no wonder that the blind
people of the country felt apprehensive. What type of standards were likely
to emerge from a commission so appointed and so conducted? Not only the
blind but also many of the agencies expressed concern. Many felt that the
AFB and federal rehabilitation officials (unwittingly aided by people of
prestige in the broader community) would impose a system of rigid
controls-which would stifle initiative, foster domination, and take the
emphasis off of real service and place it on bureaucracy, red tape, and
professional jargon. It was further felt that what purported to begin as a
voluntary system would (once firmly established) become mandatory. The AFB
and other proponents of COMSTAC and its successor organization, NAC,
vigorously denied these assertions. COMSTAC and NAC were to be truly
independent. Their very watchword was to be objectivity. They were to be the
means of improving services to blind people throughout the country and the
vehicle for progressive thought and constructive change. Readers of the
Braille Monitor will remember that from 1965 through 1968 a detailed
analysis was made of the COMSTAC and NAC reports and activities. The fact
that the Federation has not called attention in recent months to COMSTAC and
NAC should not lead the blind to believe that the threat has passed or the
situation improved. Quite the contrary is the case. The question of NAC's
independence, for example, is no longer a matter for serious debate. The
Scriptures tell us that "where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be
also. In an official NAC document entitled "Budget Comparison-1968 and
1969," dated April 15, 1968, the following items appear. "Total approved
budget calendar year 1968, $154,034; total projected calendar year 1969,
$154,000. Estimated income 1968: grant from American Foundation for the
Blind $70,000; grant from Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
$75,000. Estimated income 1969: grant from American Foundation for the Blind
$70,000; grant from Department of Health, Education, and Welfare $70,000.
Today (in 1971) the overwhelming majority of NAC's funds still come from HEW
and the American Foundation for the Blind. Many of the NAC meetings are held
at the AFB building in New York, and the executive director of NAC is a
former Foundation staff member, the same one who was on "loan" to COMSTAC.
When the first annual NAC awards were given, in 1970, it may be of
significance that two recipients were named: Mr. Jansen Noyes, President of
the Board of Directors of the American Foundation for the Blind; and Miss
Mary Switzer, the long-time head of rehabilitation in the federal Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare. Even more to the point may be Miss
Switzer's comments upon that occasion as reported in the NAC minutes of
April 24, 1970: "She predicted that difficult times might lie ahead if
agencies accept the idea of standards but do nothing about them. The
expending or withholding of public money can provide the incentive that is
needed. Thus spoke Miss Switzer, confirming what Federation leaders had
predicted and COMSTAC spokesmen had denied a decade ago. The full meaning of
Miss Switzer's statement was spelled out by Alexander Handel, Executive
Director of NAC, as reported in the NAC minutes of April 25, 1970: "Mr.
Handel reported a new and important step in encouraging accreditation. The
Council of State Administrators has passed a resolution that by July 1,
1974, state rehabilitation agencies will require that agencies from which
they purchase services be accredited. The use of the word "encouraging" in
this context is almost reminiscent of George Orwell's double-think and
new-speak of 1984-only thirteen years away, at that. Perhaps sooner. The
"encouraging" of agencies to seek accreditation from NAC will probably be
called by some by the ugly name of blackmail. The pressure for conformity
and the concentration of power could well be the most serious threat to good
programs for the blind in the decade ahead. Federationists who attended the
1966 Louisville convention will remember that a report on COMSTAC and NAC
was given at that time. I had been officially asked to serve on the NAC
board. The offer was, of course, tokenism of the most blatant sort; and the
question was whether to accept, leaving the Federation open to the charge of
approving NAC actions, or to reject, exposing us to the charge of
non-cooperation and leaving us with no means of observing and getting
information. Federationists will remember that it was decided that I should
accept the invitation. Thus, I have been a member of the NAC board since its
inception. In the spring of 1970 I was elected to another three-year term.
There are more than thirty NAC board members, of whom I am one. While
expressing my minority views, I have tried to be personally congenial and
friendly with the NAC board members. Nevertheless, tokenism remains
tokenism. The other members of the board not only seemed unconcerned with
but unaware of the non-representative character of NAC. It is as if General
Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and American Motors should set up a council and put
six or seven officials from each of their companies on its board and then
ask the UAW to contribute a single representative. What would the unions do
in such a situation? What would racial minorities do if their representative
organizations were offered such tokenism in the establishment and
promulgation of standards affecting their lives? I think we know what they
would do. They would take both political and court action, and they would
instigate mass demonstrations. Perhaps the blind should take a leaf from the
same book. We cannot and should not exhibit endless patience. We cannot and
should not forever tolerate the intolerable. I continue to sit on the NAC
board, but I often wonder why. It does not discuss the real problems which
face the blind today or the methods of solving those problems. In fact, NAC
itself may well be more a part of the problem than the solution. I repeat
that tokenism by any other name is still tokenism. In May of 1969, for
instance, I received a document from NAC entitled "Statement of
Understanding Among National Accreditation Council, National Industries for
the Blind and the General Council of Workshops for the Blind. This document
was sent to all NAC board members with the request that they vote to approve
or disapprove it. It contained six points, of which one and five are
particularly pertinent. They are as follows: "1. By June 30, 1970, all NIB
affiliated shops shall have either: a. applied to NAC for accreditation and
submitted a self-study guide (or) b. applied to the General Council for a
Certificate of Affiliation with NIB and submitted a self-study guide. 5.
Certificates of Affiliation with NIB entitle shops to membership in the
General Council and to access through NIB to: a. Government business
allocated by NIB, b. Commercial business allocated by NIB, c. Consulting
services of NIB, d. Any and all other benefits of NIB affiliation. In other
words if a workshop for the blind wishes any contracts from the federal
government, it had better get into line and "volunteer" for accreditation by
NAC. No pressure, of course, merely a system of "voluntary accreditation! As
you might expect, I voted no on the NIB agreement. Along with my ballot, I
sent the following comments: "I do not approve this statement because I do
not believe government contracts and other benefits to workshops should be
conditioned upon their accreditation by NAC. Rather, receipt of government
contracts and other benefits should depend upon the quality of performance
of the workshop in question. Does the shop pay at least a minimum wage? Do
its workers have the rights associated with collective bargaining? What sort
of image of blindness does it present to the public? "Prior to NAC (in the
days of COMSTAC) many of us said that NAC would become a vehicle for
blackmail-dressed out nicely, of course, in professional jargon. It would
appear that the prophecy is beginning to come true, earlier assurances to
the contrary notwithstanding. As I say, I voted no. What do you suppose the
final tally of the ballots indicated? Twenty-seven yes votes and one no
vote. How different the results might have been if there had been equal
representation of the blind themselves and the agencies! Yes, tokenism is
still tokenism. In order that my position cannot be twisted or
misinterpreted I would like to say that the quarrel is not with the concept
of accreditation itself. Rather, we object to what is being done in the name
of accreditation. Proper accreditation by a properly accredited group is a
constructive thing. What NAC is doing is something else altogether. There
is, of course, not time here to go into the details of all of the standards
originally developed by COMSTAC and now being fostered by NAC, but a brief
sample is sufficient to make the point. Federationists will remember that
the Braille Monitor for February, 1966, carried an analysis of the COMSTAC
standards on physical facilities. That analysis said in part: "The standards
[on physical facilities] are perhaps notable chiefly in that they are so
vague and minimal as to be equally applicable to office buildings, nursing
homes, or universities by the simple substitution of the names of these
other facilities.... Perhaps a brief run-down of the standards themselves
would serve as the best and most complete illustration (headings theirs).
Overall Suitability-The total facility is constructed to best serve the
needs of the particular agency. It will adequately serve everyone concerned.
It will meet the requirements of its governing body, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and the city building code. The physical
facilities will be helpful to the program. Location-The facility is located
where it can easily be reached by staff, clients, and others who need to use
it. The facility should be close to shopping and other community interests.
The location is reasonably safe, with hazards minimized. Grounds-The grounds
will be large enough to allow for future expansion. They will be pleasant
("free of undue nuisances and hazards,"), with parking areas and roadways.
Signs will be posted to help people locate the proper areas. Activity
Area-The layout of the facility will be efficient. The facility will be
designed for the planned activities, will be large enough and well organized
(reception rooms next to entries, work areas together, etc.). Sufficient
maintenance will be provided for. Privacy-People will have as much privacy
as individual cases call for. Confidentiality will be maintained. Health and
Safety-The health and safety codes of the community will be met. Sufficient
heat and light will be provided. Sanitary conditions will be as good as
possible. Suitable entries will be provided for wheelchairs, etc. Safety
features will be related to the level of competence of the oc'cup'ants, the
activities undertaken, and the equipment used. Adequate first aid facilities
are provided. Fire and Disaster Protection-All buildings will be so designed
and equipped as to minimize the danger of fire. The buildings will be
inspected by local authorities and/or independent authorities and records of
inspection kept. Smoking areas are clearly specified. Proper protection
shall be provided the oc'cup'ants of the facility to minimize danger should
fire or disaster occur. Suitable fire extinguishers will be provided. Fire
alarms will be installed as to be heard throughout the facility. Fire drills
will be held irregularly. Special provisions will be made for fire warnings
to deaf-blind. Maintenance-"The condition of the physical facility gives
evidence of planful and effective maintenance and housekeeping.
Remodeling-When remodeling is undertaken, it should be to best suit the
needs of the program. The preceding is an inclusive summary! One can imagine
the breadth of interpretation that can result from application of these
standards. One can also imagine the range of individual whim and
axe-grinding, not to say blackmail and favoritism, that can enter into the
proposed accreditation of agencies for the blind based on such vague and
capricious requirements. The danger to be anticipated is the possibility of
varying application of standards to friends and foes when "accrediting"
agencies.... One is tempted to dismiss this entire report of "Standards for
Physical Facilities" with the single word, "Blah! But more intensive study
indicates otherwise. Tucked away among the platitudes and the generalities
are the age-old misconceptions and stereotypes. What, for instance, is meant
by the requirement that a facility for the blind be located near to shopping
and other community interests, and that it be in a location reasonably safe,
with hazards minimized? The exact words of the committee are, "Where undue
hazards cannot be avoided, proper measures are instituted to assure the
safety of all persons coming to the agency. (For example, where an agency is
on a street with heavy traffic, a light or crosswalk or other means is
available for safe crossing by blind persons.) If this standard is simply
meant to express the general pious platitude that everybody ought to be as
safe as possible, then what a farcical and pathetic waste of time and money
to assemble a committee to spell out what everybody already knows. On the
other hand, if the standard means to imply that the blind are not able to
live and compete among the ordinary hazards of the regular workaday world
and that they need more shelter and care than others, the implications are
not only false but they are insidiously vicious. Of a similar character is
the committee's statement that the grounds must "provide pleasant and
appropriate surroundings, and be free of undue nuisances and hazards. Surely
we do not need a special commission on standards and accreditation to tell
us that people should live in pleasant surroundings that are free of undue
hazards, if this is all that is meant. If, however, the committee is saying
that the blind require surroundings that are more "pleasant and free from
hazards" than the surroundings required by other people, one cannot help but
be unhappily reminded of the 19th century concept that the blind should be
entertained and provided with recreation, that they should be helped in
every way possible to "live with their misfortune. If this type of analysis
seems blunt, one can only reply that this is no time for nice words and
mousy phrases. The people who were formerly the Commission on Standards, and
are now the National Accreditation, hold themselves out to the public at
large as the qualified experts, the people who have the right to make
standards and grant or refuse accreditation to all and sundry. These are not
children indulging in the innocent games of childhood. They are adults,
playing with the lives of hundreds of people. Federationists should review
the Braille Monitor from 1965 through 1968 to study the COMSTAC reports in
light of present developments. I have not tried here to analyze the content
of those reports. Mostly it is bad, and the standards and rules established
by COMSTAC and NAC harmful. Let anyone who doubts this assertion read the
COMSTAC reports and the Monitor analyses. They speak for themselves. One
final matter requires comment. At a recent meeting of the National
Accreditation Council I was telling a new member of the board (a prominent
businessman totally uninformed about the problems faced by the blind) that I
thought most of the actions of NAC were irrelevant. He seemed surprised and
said something to this effect: "If you think what we are doing here is not
relevant, what is relevant? To which I said, "Last fall a blind man in
Minneapolis (a person who had worked for several years as a computer
programmer at Honeywell and was laid off because of the recession) applied
to take a civil service examination for computer programmer with the city of
Minneapolis. His application was rejected, on the grounds of blindness. The
National Federation of the Blind helped him with advice and legal counsel.
As a result, he took the examination, and he now has a job with the city of
Minneapolis as a computer programmer. "How many of the people who are on the
NAC board," I asked, "are even aware that such an incident occurred? How
many of them think it is important? "Or," I went on, "consider another
incident. A few weeks ago in Ohio a blind high school senior (duly elected
by her class) was denied the right to attend the American Legion Girls'
State. The story was carried nationwide by United Press, and the matter is
still pending. Do you see any of these people here today concerned or
excited about this case? Do you see them trying to do anything about it?
"Well," my companion replied, "your organization seems to be working on
matters like this. Maybe NAC is doing good in other areas. "The difficulty,"
I told him, "is that the actions of NAC are helping to create the kind of
problem situations I have been describing to you. "How? he asked me. "NAC,"
I said, "accredits workshops, for instance. What kind of standards does it
use in determining whether a shop should be approved and presented to the
public as a worthy and progressive institution? NAC is concerned about
whether the workshop has a good accounting system. It is concerned about
good pay and good working conditions for the professional staff (almost all
of them sighted). It is concerned with the physical facilities and (perhaps)
whether there is a psychologist or psychiatrist available to minister to the
blind workers. But what about minimum wages for those same blind workers, or
the right of collective bargaining, or grievance committees? On such items
NAC is silent. It will accredit a sheltered shop which pays less than fifty
cents an hour to its blind workers. By so doing, it puts its stamp of
approval on such practices. It helps perpetuate the system that has kept the
blind in bondage and made them second-class citizens through the centuries.
It helps to slam the door on the computer programmer in Minneapolis and the
high school student in Ohio. Worst of all, perhaps, it reinforces and helps
to continue the myth that blindness means inferiority, that the blind are
unable to compete on terms of equality in regular industry or the
professions, that the blind should be grateful for what they have and stay
in their places. The workshop example is only that, an example. The same
theme is everywhere present in NAC's action and standards-and, for that
matter, in its very makeup. As we talked, my businessman companion seemed
shocked that there were sheltered shops paying less than the minimum wage to
blind workers. Yet, he is on the NAC board, lending his name to the
accreditation. I pointed out to him a variety of other ways in which the
work of NAC is helping to promote misconceptions about blindness and add to
our problems. I can only hope that the seeds I planted will bear fruit. To
round out the picture we are considering today, one further item might be
mentioned. The April 25, 1968 minutes of NAC report as follows: "Over thirty
agencies and schools have indicated, in writing, an interest in applying for
accreditation. Official applications have been received from six agencies.
Some of these have already paid the application fee. The American Council of
the Blind is the first membership association to apply for membership in the
National Accreditation Council. In a letter dated July 11, 1968, from
Alexander Handel, Executive Director of the National Accreditation Council
for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped, to members of the
NAC Board of Directors an article is discussed which appears in the July,
1968, issue of the Braille Forum (the official publication of the American
Council of the Blind). The article says in part: "It should be emphasized,
however, that from the first, ACB officers and members actively consulted
with the various committees developing the standards, and ACB was the only
national organization of the blind which both participated in and
financially supported the National Conference on Standards which led to the
formation of the National Accreditation Council. I give you this quotation
without comment. It speaks for itself. So do the actions of NAC. I presume
all of you have read the exchange of correspondence concerning the
appearance of NAC representatives at this meeting today. The contempt and
condescension inherent in NAC's bland assumption that it was proper to
reject our invitation to appear at this convention because a debate might
occur are clear for all to see. Likewise, the agreement just concluded
between NAC and the American Foundation for the Blind whereby the Foundation
will work with agencies and help prepare them for accreditation is equally
revealing. In any case the one central point which must be repeatedly
hammered home is the total irrelevance of NAC as it is now constituted and
as it is now performing. What we need today and in the years ahead is not
more detailed standards but a real belief in the competence and innate
normality of blind people, a willingness on the part of agency officials to
help blind people secure meaningful training and competitive employment, a
recognition that the blind are able to participate fully in the mainstream
of American life. We need acceptance and equality, not shelter and care.
When seen in this light, NAC must be viewed as one of our most serious
problems in the decade ahead. The blind of the nation should thoroughly
inform themselves about its activities and should insist upon a voice in
determining the character of programs affecting their lives. We should
insist that state and federal governments not delegate their powers of
setting standards for state agencies to a private group, which is not
responsive to the needs or views of the consumers of the services. It is
true that many of the agencies doing work with the blind need to be reformed
and improved, but NAC is not the entity to do it. We the organized blind
intend (in the best tradition of American democracy) to have something to
say about the scope and direction of the reform and the improvement. We are
not children, nor are we psychological cripples. We are free citizens, fully
capable of participating in the determination of our own destiny, and we
have every right and intention of having something to say about what is done
with our lives. . 

_______________________________________________
Nfbf-l mailing list
Nfbf-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbf-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org/kdavisnfbf%40cfl.rr.com
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7357 / Virus Database: 4522/11530 - Release Date: 02/01/16