[blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the blind

[Everett Zufelt]

I am 26-years old, and have only been blind for 2 years, so I do not 
understand what a life of blindness may be like.  There have been a number 
of struggles that I have had to go through in the past years, to deal with 
the total loss of sight.  Nevertheless, statements like the one in 
discussion "I would rather be blind..." really do not offend me at all.  On 
a practicle level, "rather be blind then see you walk away" makes the most 
sense of any disability, it carries a greater meaning to non-disabled 
persons than "rather be deaf than hear you walk away" or "rather be 
paralyzed than try to chase you while you walk away".

It is understandable that some people are hurt by this statement.  Having to 
struggle everyday to "keep up with the Jones'" can be a very tiring and 
emotionally draining experience.  Language, however, is a method of 
communicating meaning.  Could the author of the agenda / event have chosen a 
better wording, likely.  Did the phrasing that he / she chose communicate a 
meaningful message, almost definitely.

I think that what is important in this situation, or any situation where one 
becomes hurt and offended at what another has said regarding a sensative 
area of their life, is to realize that people make mistakes, and do not 
always think through what they are saying.  For us all to be guarded in our 
speech all of the time would be overwhelming.  It is necessary, therefore, 
that things will be said that cause us to feel pain from time to time.  Like 
it or not, the offence that is felt from these circumstances is because of 
pain, not a rational disposition against the content of the message.  I 
think that as members of any minority group we need to do our best to take 
things like this in stride, to recognize our emotions, and when appropriate 
(such as this forum) to discuss our feelings in a constructive way.

Everett


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ashley, Kathy J" <Kathy.Ashley at fssa.in.gov>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the 
blind


> I'm not an attorney, I do not play one on TV, nor did I stay all night
> at a Holiday Inn Express, but I feel that this language is very
> offensive and only under heavy sedation could I even put a positive spin
> on the wording.  Why not say:  I would rather be in a wheel chair than
> see you walk away from me?  Or I would rather go deaf than to see you
> walk away from me.  It is still demeaning and ugly.
>
> Kathy Ashley, MS, CRC
> Program Director for Blind & VI Services
> Vocational Rehabilitation Services
> 1-800-545-7763
> 317-232-1352
> Fax: 317-232-6478
>
> PLEASE NOTE: Information contained in this email and/or attachment may
> contain protected health, legally privileged, or otherwise confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above.
> If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that you may not further disseminate, distribute,
> disclose, copy or forward this message or any of the content herein. If
> you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and delete the original.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Noel Nightingale
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:11 PM
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the
> blind
>
>
> Blind law listers:
>
> I just ran across a family law CLE agenda for my local county bar
> association that contains t following agenda topic:
>
> 2:15     I'd Rather Go Blind Than See You Walk Away From Me:  Stories
> from the Relocation Trenches
>
> Panel discussion of recent problems in interpretation and enforcement of
> the Relocation Act
>
> Before I knee jerk react against this language, I'd like to hear what
> you all think about the agenda item title stating that the presenters
> would rather go blind than have a custodial parent relocate.  Perhaps it
> can be construed as a positive statement about being blind.  What do you
> think?
>
> Noel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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