From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Why the NFB
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Daveed Mandell wrote:
> 
> 
> Harvey is one of the NFB's invaluable members precisely because he has the
> courage to want to trully improve the organization.
> I'm afraid there's not much chance that the leadership will become more
> open and democratic, since Marc has patterned himself exactly after Ken.
> Barbara Pierce, whom I admire very much, tends not to write in her own
> style in the BM, but rather has chosen to adopt Ken's writing style.
> That's unfortunate.  And Lorraine!  She is sc
> scared todeath at just being a person!  It's Miss Rovig, the JOB robot!
> The sighted person who thinks she knows best what blind people need on the
> job!
> Ad indeed that she, and other, cannot be themselves in this organizatio!
> Sad indeed that the membership quakes at the thought of contesting the
> policies and leadership of the organization!
> Freedom?  Where?
> Keep it up, Harvey.  I hope a few thinking individuals will listen and
> take heed!
> 
> 
> 
I was a member of this outfit from 1977 until November of 1990.  At that
time, I left because of events that culminated a few days later in a
wrongful expulsion.  I rejoined in April of 1994, after much thought and
conversation, to try to work on the things it does right and to try to
change the things I think it does wrong.  For several reasons, including
doubts about the wisdom or rejoining, I was not especially active for a
time.  One thing I was able to do is begin what resulted, though
imperfectly, in the readmission of a first-rate person.  In so doing, I
came to have a considerably higher opinion of Marc Maurer than Iprobably
ever had before.  I expect to retain this opinion more or less intact for
the long term, even if I finally decide that the outfit is going too far
in the wrong direction for me to remain a member.  (I'm not saying that
will happen, but only that I realize it could.)
In past messages, I've set forth some views about how this organization
could become a much more open, participatory democracy.  I've opposed our
current proposal for reforming the SSDI program for a variety of reasons,
and (with my wife) am surely in a small minority on that one.  And, you've
doubtless read my last two messages by now.
I've also expressed support for some of our positions, however.  I'm
always happier when I can back the party line with passion because it
makes sense, such as promoting Braille or during most of our battle with
the benighted, sometimes belligerent airline industry.  Much of our
literature is the best reading you'll ever find about how life can be when
you're blind.  At its best, "The Braille Monitor" is a first-rate
combination of information and opinions honestly expressed (not that
hidden slant that "objective" journalists too often infuse into their
writing).  
With this as background, please consider carefully what follows.
Criticism is a tool, not a purpose.  Apparently unlike some folks, I think
Harvey is indeed a valuable member who does use criticism as a tool for
improvement:  I often agree with him (if not always his style) and respect
him and his motives.  
There are others (not members, as far as I can tell) whose principal
purpose in NFB-Talk and BlindTalk seems to be to castigate the Federation.
There may be truth hidden in what they say, but the comments are usually
so general and rhetorical that they are meaningless as aids to improving
the NFB.  I put your own messages in this category:  calling the members
sheep, declaring that the outfit is undemocratic without giving useful
examples (of which, sadly, there have been some), or calling Lorraine
Rovig "the JOB robot" is unlikely indeed to promote thinking or more
participatory democracy.  I like and use rhetoric, but I hope I do my best
to link it with enough data for people to determine the truth of what I
assert.  I also try to note clearly the limits of my knowledge, so that
people will be able to see me as able to accept factual correction and
alternative perspectives--and, indeed, so that I'll have an easier time
doing those things.  I'm sure I fail at times, but I try to be logical and
fair in my critical comments, as well as my laudatory ones.  You clearly
have the ability to go beyond what I regard as the simplistic blasts at an
organization that, while it should improve, can't do it that way.
I also happen to disagree with you about Barbara Pierce's style in the
Monitor.  I noticed a definite style change from Ken's as she took it
over.  Ken Jernigan has written some very good stuff, but I generally like
the style of Barbara's editorial comments better than I do his.
I do agree with you that this last name business and other elements of
life at our national center should go and go far.  I think I've not
written to ask Marc why we indulge in it only because I feel a little
embarrassed about making too much noise about an annoying but mostly
harmless eccentricity.  But Marc has never hassled me about calling him
Marc, so maybe I shouldn't waste my emotions getting annoyed about the
formalism.
I've chosen to be a member, but I know that there are good reasons not to
join this outfit.  I'm curious, though, why non-members would waste very
much of their time blasting the outfit in one or more of its conferences.
No, this is not a call for censorship.  It's an honest question.  For the
time I was out, I didn't make it a point to tell the world what a bad
outfit it was, though I certainly did mention the problems as well as the
virtues when the time was right.  
In closing, I say only that I want to find more pearls and less other
stuff in the criticism.  (Of course, those who think my own comments are
"other stuff" are free to say so.) I think more people would listen.
Take care!  Thanks for your attention to this!
Al
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------