From: empower@smart.net
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Hi Harvey!
Thanks for your support about the process I experienced in 1991.  My
intent in joining was not to rehash past battles.  I thought this was
the board's intent too, so I was puzzled by the October Monitor
article, which seemed unnecessarily confrontational.  I was not 
consulted before its publication, and could have answered some of its
public speculation concerning the Braille Forum article.  
For the record, I submitted it in early April 1997, while I was an 
active ACB member and before the meeting the Sten-Clanton's and I 
had at the national office to discuss my rejoining the NFB (in late 
May).  The Braille Forum editor originally indicated to me that my 
article would be published in May.  Due to political pressure he 
experienced from superiors at ACB, it kept getting delayed, and was 
not published until August.  I did not try to stop its publication, indeed I
encouraged this because it was a viewpoint I wanted to publicly express in 
he
organized blind movement.  I did not actually become an NFB member until
October, and though it was my intent, I did not regard the transition of
membership affiliations as a good reason to try to rescind an article I
had worked hard on and submitted for publication.  My father is an
African studies scholar and found it quite odd that there would be
consternation about a difference in organizational affiliation between
the time an article was submitted and published.  If a professor moves
to another university, he or she does not write to publishers and
ask for articles being considered to be dropped because the affiliation
listed would no longer be up to date.
Concerning my perspectives on separate agencies for the blind and
cross-disability coalitions, I believe I have as much right to my views
as any member has to his or hers.  The board subjected me to no litmus
test on my issue positions, only a commitment that I would abide by
official policy.  A couple of understandable inaccuracies are evident in
your message about past events.  In Massachusetts, I did not advocate
that the affiliate join a coalition.  I started a computer group and a
job seekers group that were outside the Federation and aspired to have
no formal connection with it.  They were service and support oriented,
not policy and politically oriented.
In the case of the ACB electoral process, I ran for Secretary in 1995
and board member in 1996.  Both, I think, were quite respectable
attempts which drew considerable grassroots support.  In the end, I
think I was defeated primarily because the established leadership viewd
my blindness philosophy as too Federation-like, and so it actively
and successfully organized against me.
Let me say that I agree with much of what you say about improving
participatory processes in the Federation.  I think some of your
statements, however, are going beyond civil and productive discourse,
such as personal attacks on Marc Maurer, Barbara Pierce, and Don Capps 
(indirectly).  
We should expect respect from our leaders in the Federation, and 
they also deserve ours.
Regards,
Jamal
On 1998-04-18 NFB-Talk@NFBnet.org said:
   >That's the dangerous thing about absolute power.  At some point
   >any well intentioned leadership becomes too powerful and begins
   >to feed the power structure.  I too hope that Jamal is sincere
   >about working with the organization and will not attempt to
   >further his agenda about joining co-elisions and such as that
   >has already been proven to be a failure for blind people.  There
   >is an important difference between joining them and working along
   >side them when possible.
   >Also, remember that at the A.C.B.'s Greensboro Convention, I
   >believe, Jamal unsuccessfully ran for second vice-president of the
   >A.C.B. only a year before returning to the N.F.B.  But according to
   >a friend of mine who belongs to the A.C.B., the A.C.B. was cautious
   >remembering that they thought they had a blue chip in Robert Acosta
   >and found out later what a disaster it had to deal with much to its
   >chagrin and financial losses in the hundreds of
   >thousands of dollars.  So I hope his is a sincere effort, but I
   >still feel the national leadership should have apologized to him
   >for violating its own procedure in the expulsion process.  I am
   >not opposed to expulsion when warranted, but I regard it as a very
   >serious issue not to be taken lightly.  No matter what a person
   >may be guilty of, he or she still deserves a fair and proper
   >hearing.
   >Harvey
Net-Tamer V 1.09.2  - Registered
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------