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

[Ashley, Kathy J]

I am not saying that we should be guarded in our speech and watch
everything we say.  Lordy, I am probably the least politically correct
person around, but when a statement like this is presented as an agenda
topic, I do believe that more thought should have been given to the
title.  I don't know what CLE stands for, but I probably would have not
attended that particular session based on the title alone.  

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 Everett Zufelt
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:58 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the
blind


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 

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw