[blindlaw] rift over law suit

[Will Miller]

Very well said, and I definitely understand the NFB's position better in the 
context of issue prioritization. I agree that there probably are some 
demands for accessibility that are counterproductive in that they perpetuate 
a view in the general public that blind people demand a disproportionate 
amount of public resources. However, I think that argument makes more sense 
in the context of something arguably frivolous like described TV than it 
does when speaking about currency.
The design of currency is an issue for every blind person who handles 
money -- in other words, almost every single blind person in the U.S. It is 
a needless barrier to independence that affects us personally everyday -- I 
think it is hard to argue against the importance of currency in the lives of 
all Americans, whether blind or sighted.
Furthermore, while implementing changes in currency may create some expense, 
I do not think it would be an undue burden on the U.S. Treasury. 
Particularly when you consider the recent release of quarters with "tails" 
sides customized for each of the 50 states. There was also a recent change 
in currency that increased the size of the numbers that indicate value and 
the size of the U.S. president featured on the $5, $10, and $20 bills (I'm 
not sure about $50s and $100s -- I wish I was more familiar with those). If 
the Treasure can create customized coins for each of the fifty states, I 
think they can implement a change in the size of bills without too much 
difficulty.
I believe that this issue, when seen from a more panoramic view,  is one of 
the most important issues facing the blind, and that it is analogous to 
inaccessible websites. Both are man-created, and as such there are decisions 
that influence how they are designed. Neither one has to be designed 
inaccessibly, and, given their ubiquity, shouldn't they be designed to be 
accessible to as many people as possible?
In a previous life I worked with web designers to advise them on how to 
create accessible websites. More often than not, there was a flaw in the 
template that they were using (usually a style sheet) that affected the 
accessibility of every page on the site. The solution to the barrier was a 
one-time undertaking. It usually required a slight modification to the 
template, but once it was done there was no further expense in its 
maintenance. I think it is reasonable to ask the federal government to make 
a one-time change to their template -- the one that affects the 
accessibility of currency. If that is demanding too much, then what isn't?
-Will




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Danielsen" <christopher.danielsen at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sen t: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit


> Responses to your points:
>
> 1.  It is true that there are blind people who are not members of the NFB,
> or ACB for that matter.  There are also probably retired persons who are 
> not
> members of AARP, African-Americans who are not members of NAACP, and so
> forth.  Nonetheless, the AARP and NAACP have great influence in speaking 
> out
> on issues which affect the retired and African-American communities. 
> That's
> because, while not all retired persons or African-Americans are members of
> those organizations, their members are retired or African-American.
> Politicians and policy makers assume that, because many retired people
> choose to join the AARP and many African-Americans join the NAACP, those
> groups know something about what their respective communities want and 
> need.
> The same is true of the NFB.  Though not all blind people are members, its
> voting members and officers are all blind.  Its policies are voted on by
> blind people.  Because the NFB represents a large number of people, and
> because we have worked hard over the years to gain influence, we are
> listened to.  We are listened to primarily because we have not only
> advocated for the rights of the blind but successfully implemented many
> policies and programs that are helpful to the blind: Newsline, our science
> academies, so forth.  I think it's fair to say that, objectively speaking,
> the ACB does not have the same track record of success, though of course
> this lawsuit is a victory in their column so far.  Which leads me to your
> second point.
>
> 2.  The reason there are two blindness organizations, or two major ones at
> any rate, is because the members of those two organizations have differing
> philosophies of what blindness means and what accommodations are necessary
> to improve the situation of blind people.  By its own admission, the ACB's
> philosophy is less clear than the NFB's, but there can be no doubt that 
> the
> ACB tends to demand more accommodations than NFB does.  ACB wants 
> mandatory
> described entertainment programming on television: NFB does not.  ACB 
> wants
> audible pedestrian signals installed universally; NFB does not.  I believe
> the ACB supported detectable warnings; NFB did not.  Now ACB wants the
> currency to be modified and NFB does not.  Based on all that, I'd say that
> the NFB's characterization that the ACB believes that the world needs to 
> be
> altered dramatically and specifically for the blind is pretty accurate.
> That said, you're entitled to disagree with it.  But the characterization
> was made based on the ACB's actions.  Actions speak louder than words; no
> matter how much the ACB claims otherwise, the things it has done indicate
> its philosophy.  The NFB has as much right to characterize the ACB as the
> ACB does the NFB.  And let's at least admit that the NFB has not tended to
> personally attack the leaders of the ACB, which has not been true in the
> reverse.  ACB's executive director once went as far as to call Kenneth
> Jernigan a Nazi.  Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but in the 
> face
> of relentless attacks from the ACB, the NFB has mostly stayed silent and
> until recently has not specifically attacked or characterized the ACB.
> Maybe that's a better approach, but I think that in this matter of the
> money, the public has a right to know that blind people disagree on the
> issue, and more importantly, why we disagree.  The Treasury Department, 
> the
> courts, and society must decide which point of view they agree with, and 
> so
> far the ACB is winning, but that doesn't mean the NFB will stop fighting.
> The perception of the blind in the world at large is at stake, and we have
> every right to explain our difference with the ACb on this issue so that 
> the
> public at least knows that there are different points of view and why 
> those
> different points of view exist.
>
> Chris
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <rmorin0423 at aol.com>
> To: <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit
>
>
>> Chris,
>> a couple of points:
>> 1. NFB does NOT speak for the nation's blind. There are many people who
>> are blind and vision impiared who are not members of the NFB.
>> 2. Disagreeing is fine. The potrayal of the ACB as was done in the NFB
>> Press Relesae is baseless, incorrect and wrong. What is the purpose of
>> defaming another organzation? Stop deflecting the issue with rhetoric.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: christopher.danielsen at gmail.com
>> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> Sent: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 2:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit
>>
>>
>> Rod,
>>
>> The problem with your argument here is that sometimes, as in this case,
>> one
>> organization will do something that the other organization perceives as
>> counterproductive to the best interests of blind people.  Putting aside
>> your
>> views on this particular issue, are you saying that the NFB should avoid
>> disagreeing with the ACB, no matter how ridiculous and counterproductive
>> to
>> the welfare of blind people the position the ACB takes?  While we are 
>> both
>> fighting for the rights of the blind, we sometimes disagree
>> philosophically
>> on what battles to fight and the effect that fighting those battles will
>> have.  We have a real philosophical disagreement with the ACB on this
>> issue.
>> Are you saying we should shut up about it just for the sake of doing so?
>> If
>> an organization purporting to speak for the blind said it would be better
>> for blind people to be institutionalized for our own safety and well
>> being,
>> and even if they won a court battle to that effect, I certainly wouldn't
>> acquiesce in that point of view and I would make sure the world knew that
>> I
>> didn't agree.  That's an extreme example, and maybe this particular fight
>> isn't important enough in your eyes to make the disagreement public, but
>> let's please get away from this argument that we should avoid disagreeing
>> just for the sake of avoiding disagreeing.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Rod Alcidonis " <roddj12 at hotmail.com>
>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 7:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit
>>
>>
>>> Ronza, then if it is really two organizations with two differing view
>>> points, why can't we stop fighting with each other and fight with the
>>> world,
>>> instead. In your references to other organizations, I don't believe that
>>> any
>>> one of them would go to court and oppose the other's litigation when 
>>> they
>>> should be fighting for the same thing.
>>>
>>>    My frustration is not that there are two organizations with differing
>>> point of views, as your message seems to indicate, rather, it is at the
>>> fact
>>> that we are fighting with ourselves, not with the misconceptions that 
>>> are
>>> present in society. Here, one organization went to court and obtained a
>>> result, it makes absolutely no sense for another organization that is
>>> fighting for similar causes under a different philosophy to step in with
>>> the
>>> intention of negating the other's achievement. This is counter
>>> productive.
>>>
>>> If you read Sarah's point in a previous message, you'll see what she
>>> wrote
>>> makes sense. We have two choices: if our goal is to fight with one
>>> another,
>>> then let's not do it in the public, and certainly not in the courtroom.
>>> In
>>> the eyes of the general public we look as a group of "confused"
>>> indecisive
>>> community. Our second choice is that, let us invoke our own philosophy
>>> and
>>> stay out of each other's business as much as possible, and especially in
>>> the
>>> courtroom.
>>>
>>> Rod
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of AZNOR99 at aol.com
>>> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:30 PM
>>> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit
>>>
>>> Hi Rod and All,
>>>
>>> I understand your frustration at the situation, but I think you're being
>>> a
>>> little unfair to all the parties involved.  When the split occurred, it
>>> is
>>> certainly true that the majority of us were absent.  However, each group
>>> felt
>>> that it was in the best interest of the populous to move away from the
>>> other.
>>> Now, whether we like it or not, each organization holds a different
>>> philosophy, works toward different goals, and generates different
>>> policies.
>>>
>>> Nonetheless, each organization has a common cause -- promoting  the
>>> rights
>>> of blind
>>> people.  There are hundreds of civil rights  organizations in the
>>> country.
>>> I can
>>> think of five that focus on the rights  of incarcerated prisoners off 
>>> the
>>> top
>>> of my head.  I've worked for three  that emphasize the rights of 
>>> battered
>>> women.  Each has different  philosophies, but each was organized around
>>> acheving
>>> freedom, or justice, or  safety, or whatever primary goal, for that
>>> particular
>>> population.  I, for  one, choose the NFB because I believe in its
>>> philosophy.
>>> I believe that  each blind person should be afforded equality,
>>> opportunity,
>>>
>>> and security.   I also believe that we should receive respect and seek
>>> our
>>> own
>>> independence.  In my opinion, asking a court to require the government 
>>> to
>>> change the shape of money conveys to the public, and to myself, that I 
>>> am
>>> incapable of functioning in the world.  I believe I should utilize tools
>>> that
>>> adapt my surroundings to make them accessible for me; I vehemently 
>>> oppose
>>> anything that requires the world to adapt to me because it reenforces
>>> misconceptions about blindness.  It is like shooting a fly with a 
>>> missile
>>> when it would be
>>> more efficient and functional to just use a fly swatter.   But those are
>>> my
>>> views, and I chose the organization that most closely shares  them.  I
>>> don't
>>>
>>> perpetuate a rift between the ACB and the NFB by choosing  one
>>> organization
>>> over
>>> another.  I don't necessarily oppose the work of  Amnesty International
>>> by
>>> supporting some of the overlapping work done by the  ACLU, do I?  I bet
>>> each
>>> of
>>> us is a member of more than one Bar  Association.  Many of them started
>>> out
>>> as
>>> a result of rifts or breaks from  other bar associations.  We choose the
>>> ones
>>> that suit us best, and  sometimes we choose not to join others.
>>>
>>> My final thought, as I stand on my soapbox, is that I don't necessarily
>>> agree with your prison analogy.  Many of us would certainly refuse to
>>> leave
>>>
>>> prison early if it meant we were going to be classified as incompetent 
>>> or
>>> transferred to an institution serving the criminally insane.  Some of us
>>> would rather
>>> finish out our stint in prison then agree to labels we believe are
>>> false,
>>> harmful, and even abhorrent.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ronza
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
>> security
>> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the 
>> web,
>> free AOL Mail and more.
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>