[nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
Michael Bullis
mabullis at hotmail.com
Sat May 10 16:35:37 CDT 2008
I would second Mike's thoughts about excessive accommodation. The
unfortunate reality is that when you go to work there will be little or no
accommodation--particularly in private industry and/or in small businesses.
You have to figure out how to get memo's, strategic plans, the bosses next
great idea. You make friends with secretaries, function in meetings without
the print document, ask questions that reveal information without making a
big deal, or no deal at all if you're smart, about the fact that a document
wasn't provided to you in advance in an accessible format. It's about
survival skills. It's about problem solving. It's about functioning in a
sighted world and dealing with it.
Unfortunately, schools actually do much to inhibit the learning of these
much needed skills. They become enablers of dependent behaviours in the
name of providing access. I see far to many young people who obtain jobs
right out of college and then languish, unpromoted and clearly not on a
career track. The person blaims it on discrimination and on unfairness.
True, true. But, with a little savy, that blind person could move up, could
find that career path. Ultimately, it comes down to seeing ones self as
being personally responsible for the outcome and finding a way to get there.
The law be damned as far as I'm concerned. We should only be asking society
for things we absolutely need, not things that make our lives more
convenient. I am one of those who think that accessible voting is probably
a case in which we should have left the matter alone. Yes, yes, I know,
"It's a right" and all that. But, frankly, I was doing just fine without
that particular right and we have heaped mountains of attention on ourselves
and our so-called right. Let's remember that no right is obtained without
the backlash of hostility. This hostility will come through our fight for
accessible voting. It will come through our insistence that quiet cars make
noise. It will come if our money should be require to be accessible. It
comes with our insistence that the web be accessible.
What bothers me most about these discussions isn't that we have them. It is
that there is far to little consideration amongst some groups about the
price to be paid. The price in lost jobs because employers think we can't
deal with our money, the price to be paid because they think we can't even
cross streets unless we have a special traffic signal, Etc. For my money,
(accessible or not), if I'm going to pay a price to society, I want to make
sure it's for something I absolutely need, not just something that would be
nice. Underlying our fight for equal treatment needs to be a deep
cognisance of our need to take personal responsibility for our blindness.
Mike Bullis
Baltimore Maryland
Mike Bullis
-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces+mabullis=hotmail.com at nfbnet.org
[mailto:nfb-talk-bounces+mabullis=hotmail.com at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Freeman
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:29 PM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
Joseph:
You cite Auburn U as a model of DSS functioning. But are we really doing
students a favor if we provide them with something they will no longer have
on the "outside"? I think part of our problems today stems from the fact
that students come to expect that most everything will be provided for them
and when they hit the world of competitive industry and find that they've
been living in a fools' paradise, they scream "discrimination" bloody murder
because they haven't learned yet that in the real world, they are
responsible in large measure for their own accommodations. Never mind
whether it's "fair" or not -- the question of fairness is largely
irrelevant!
Mike Freeman
.. "It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly." -- Anatole
France
----- Original Message -----
From: T. Joseph Carter
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
Jim,
In special education, we often hear that if one student gets
something,
they all should get it. That's fair, right? Let's consider the
question
of what's fair from two different perspectives:
Let's say we were both children, maybe eight years old. You see that
I
just got a cookie for my good behavior. You want one too, don't you?
You
have also been on your best behavior, and so you deserve a cookie if I
do!
It's only fair--fairness means we get the same, you and I.
But let us say for a moment that we both live in a poverty-stricken
village and there is a food shortage. The United States has just
dropped
two large crates of food to help feed the ten families that live in
the
village. We, the heads of our households, each take one tenth of the
food
to feed our families. It's only fair, right? I have a family of
three,
and you have a family of seven. You have more than twice as many
people
to feed, so the food should be divided in such a way that we each have
enough to feed our families for a time. Fairness means not that we
get
the same, but rather that we each get what we need of the resources
that
are available.
Young children cannot understand this second form of fairness because
they
have not yet developed the ability to view the world from a
perspective of
someone other than themselves yet. In special education, we sometimes
have to remind people that this second sort of fairness is what really
is
important here. There are finite resources, and we must divide them
among
our students according to the needs of each, not so that the students
each
get the same thing. That means one student sometimes gets things
another
does not, even if they don't understand why that is.
By now I'm sure you realize I mean to say that the situation is the
same
with resources given to adults with disabilities. Sighted people have
a
light to help them cross. Wheelchair users have a ramp to help them
cross. Why should not a blind person have a beep to help him cross?
Because the sighted person needs the light, not knowing the rules of
crossing a street in the same way that we do. A wheelchair user may
not
be able to cross the street without that ramp. But you and I don't
need
any help crossing that street because we know how to do it. So the
resources that might be applied to making a chirping signal should
rightly
go elsewhere.
I look at the situation in much the same way. Either we adapt to the
world or we make the world adapt to us. The NFB generally speaking
says
we should adapt to the world. That's our default view. It is only
when
the world deliberately chooses to exclude us do we take action to
change
the world (as you note, Target comes to mind.)
Otherwise, we encourage people who are blind to do the adapting. It's
more work, it's a lot harder, and the results aren't always what we'd
like
them to be, but it's a very realistic viewpoint in that the majority
of
the world simply doesn't care about us enough to give us a second
thought.
Often, we don't even rate a first thought!
The ACB takes the other approach, and it is equally valid, if somewhat
less realistic in my own view. They seek to change the world so that
blind people have the same opportunities as sighted people, without
jumping through lots of hoops first. We Federationists generally
disagree
with this approach first because it isn't actually going to happen any
time soon, and second because sometimes sighted people get the wrong
impression if they see things being done differently for us. We want
to
change attitudes and low expectations, not reinforce them.
The NFB way isn't always right. The currency case is one area I
believe
this to be so--just because we CAN manage our money using alternative
techniques does not mean the inability to tell which of two bills is
the
$20 and which is the dollar is a good thing. Oh sure we can do it if
we
have a pricey little gadget and maybe a fresh set of batteries, but a
little measuring key that folds up to the size of a credit card would
be
better.
I believe this is a resource that should be allocated to us not
because we
must have it, but because it is the right thing to do. That doesn't
make
me ready to join the ACB--I don't subscribe to their view of how the
world
should fit blind people. This time, though, they've hit upon
something
important. Not AS important as, say, solving the hybrid car problem
or
ensuring that blind people have the opportunities and skills needed to
find successful and meaningful employment, but important all the same.
As to the DSO issue... The best DSO I have heard of to date with
regard
to alternative format textbooks is Auburn University (thanks again to
Dezman), where the university takes care of all of that stuff when
possible well in advance of the student having the reasonable
opportunity
to do the necessary things themselves. They do it not to discourage
students from advocating for themselves or developing and applying the
best alternative techniques they can. No, they do it to make sure
that
when the term starts, you aren't immediately behind because you're
dealing
with textbook issues.
If for some reason that happens, the DSO will already have
communicated
with the professor about it. Sometimes the right thing is to
encourage
personal responsibility and self-advocacy. Sometimes the right thing
is
to give them the tools they need to be successful when they need those
tools, and not letting them have the need or opportunity to practice a
maladaptive skill like making excuses, even valid ones.
In Auburn's case, it also means never asking a student to pay hundreds
of
dollars for textbooks and then surrender them to be literally
destroyed
for the DSO's convenience and budget. But that's another thread and
another list. *grin*
Joseph
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:28:04PM -0600, Jim Marks wrote:
> Thanks, Joseph. Your thoughtful response is not only good, it's
> appreciated.
>
> John and others often toss analogies into discussions that go like
this:
> Wheelchair users get something, sighted people get something, so
blind
> people should get the same thing. I worked for several years in a
center
> for independent living. These centers focus mostly on making
environments
> accessible by people with disabilities. As a blind center staff
member, I
> never felt like the environmental remedy was doing the job for the
blind. I
> was looking for a better answer and found it in the NFB. There I
learned
> about making choices that presumed personal responsibility and
power. I
> learned that all people with disabilities have two choices in life
in order
> to compete on equal footing with our peers. We either change
ourselves
> through positive attitudes and actions or we change the environment.
Most
> of us blend the two options for the best effect. It is possible to
> over-emphasize either option. The NFB certainly is in favor of
> environmental accessibility. We see it in things like the Target
website
> lawsuit and in the development of technologies. However, the first
tool
> applied in the NFB philosophy is personal responsibility and power.
It's
> hard to put into words that don't sound like clichés, but the NFB
acts on
> the principle that it's OK to be blind. The more we believe in
ourselves,
> the less we look for environmental solutions. And as a consequence
of the
> self-reliance and self-determination, we often also find ourselves
in the
> role of the givers rather than the takers. At the same time, we
should not
> shy away from asking for environmental modifications that make
sense.
>
> One last thing I wanted to say is that I am professionally
responsible for
> access to my university by all people with disabilities. The NFB
philosophy
> serves this cause well, especially when one pays attention to the
individual
> impact of various disabilities. It is possible to deliver access
services
> in such a way that the disability service office creates dependence.
We can
> kill opportunities for the people we serve by doing for them the
things they
> can do for themselves. I grow weary of those who want to solve
every
> disability issue with environmental fixes. People must learn how to
> function in any environment, accessible or otherwise. The last
thing we
> want to do is to create a society of people who wait for others to
take the
> point on what amounts to very personal functions. Some have a right
to more
> environmental fixes than others due to the logical link between the
impact
> of their disabilities and the program modification. But blind
students get
> trapped in one-size-fits-all approaches that never look at what
blind people
> can do for themselves. This is at least one reason by blind and
visually
> impaired college students comprise the only group of students with
> disabilities in higher education that's shrinking. Over reliance on
> environmental fixes hurt blind people. Yet we still see people
calling for
> those fixes on the grounds that others get them. We also see people
using
> environmental modifications as though they are cures for the
disabilities.
> Access will never turn a blind person into a sighted person. The
goal is
> not to be a sighted person who cannot see, but rather a blind person
who
> functions well as a blind person and who is a peer in a diverse
world.
>
> -------
> Jim Marks
> blind.grizzly at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
for nfb-talk:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/tjosephcarter%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/k7uij%40panix.com
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/mabullis%40hotmail.com
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list