From: sojacobson@mmm.com
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Steve Z.,
I hope you don't mind the "Steve Z." label, but it gets confusing with 
two Steve's.
It seems to me that the recurring themes in your response remain the 
dominance of the membership by the leadership and the complacency of the 
membership.  You mentioned that there was not the "critical mass" to make 
changes that you feel are needed, which would seem to acknowledge that 
change is possible if the critical mass were there.  If one were to 
change the process to either reduce the influence of the leadership or to 
stimulate the critical mass to bring about change, isn't the process 
that is being used to bring about change thereby bypassing the 
membership?  What I am saying is that the process can always be the tool 
of a faction, and that there is no process that truly guarantees that it 
cannot be used to subvert the will of the majority.  Therefore, I would 
maintain that the specific process is not all that important as long as 
it offers the possibility of change.
You asked if I trusted the membership, and I do in theory.  In practice, 
though, one must ask which membership.  Is the membership everyone who 
pays their dues or is it everyone who comes to a convention?  I think 
this is a difficult question to answer.  Further, I don't hold the NFB or 
my political party to the same standard of participation as I hold my 
government.  I chose the NFB and my political party based partly upon 
what they already stood for, while I did not really choose my 
government.  What this means is that I am willing to sacrafice something 
in terms of the process to allow my party or the NFB to achieve the 
goals for which I joined more quickly.  As I said in another message, 
the fact that I can leave the NFB and go somewhere else if I am 
disatisfied with the course taken is also part of the check and ballance 
system that is not really present within our government.
I am finding this exchange interesting, and I hope you understand that I 
am truly trying to exchange ideas and not simply engage in a war of 
words.    
> Steve,,
> 
>       No you have me incorrect here.  It's nothing to do with trusting 
> the membership. None of this has to do with trust.  It has to do with 
> process.  Both the leadership and membership make decisional mistakes from 
> time to time.  It just seems to me that too many general members just 
> take blindly ideas and decisions of the leadership, whether it be 
> national board or their state presidents.  There is not enough critical 
> thinking among the members.  I sense that a feeling persists among the 
> members that if Mr. Jernigan says it, it must be true.  
> 
>       In a way this is understandable.  The federation has done much for
> many people and they honor that by generally agreeing with policies of the
> organization.  However, some of the positions taken by the leadership have
> been left unquestioned.  I'm referring here to the resolutions process for
> example.  Many were not sure if the airline battle was going to get us
> where we wanted.  It's proven to have not done what was intented, that
> blind be simply left alone and assumed to be competent.  We've arrived at
> a fair compormise, where a process of self-identification of abilities is
> in place, where an individual chooses to sit on a certain seat or not. And
> of course, the blind are still singled out by the airlines.  I should
> clarify my statement, fair for sighted, but not necessarily the blind.  So
> I don't think the intended result has occured.  But all that is another
> story meant here only as an example. 
> 
>       My basic thrust is that the general members and those that lead 
> should be a team, working together with respect.  I think the leadership 
> takes the members votes for granted and plan accordingly.  When a little 
> problem occurs, out comes the guns, so to speak.  So this is not a matter 
> of trust but of process.
> 
>       I could ask you and will, do you trust the judgement of the 
> membership?  I'm not meaning to be flip with this question, but am njust 
> turning it around.  Leaders are not always correct, nor are members.  And 
> I do fault the membership as a whole for not thinking critically enough, 
> my perspective, regarding key issues.  But I also quite understand how 
> very difficult it is to make changes in the organization and the methods 
> used by those in power to retain it.  It is a difficult situation.  There 
> just isn't enough critical mass of general members who understand the 
> ramifications of what is going on and how they can influence it.  
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 sojacobson@mmm.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > Isn't the impact of your comments here that one really can't trust the 
> > membership?  On the one hand, you are advocating for greater democracy, 
> > while on the other you are saying that the membership should not have the 
> > right or power to accept the recommendations of the leadership.  Unless I 
> > am not understanding your point, I think it is the influence of the 
> > leadership that makes you uncomfortable, not the political structure.  
> > I'm not trying to be critical of that, only saying that it changes the 
> > focus of discussion.   
> > 
> > > Jim, 
> > > 
> > > The criticism in this thread does not have anything to do with the
> > > empowering nature of the nfb philosophy.  Many, myself included, view 
that
> > > philosophy as a valid means of dealing with the social aspects of
> > > blindness, lack of understanding from people, discrimination, etc.  I 
have
> > > absolutely no problem with the general empowering philosophy of 
blindness
> > > which the NFB promotes.  I feel it is the only way to fly.  Some may 
take
> > > the philosophy a little over board in my opinion, but as long as they
> > > don't include general rudeness towards others, sighted or blind, then
> > > that's fine with me.  In fact I've found that most of the competent 
blind
> > > people I know have been touched positively by NFB philosophy. 
> > > 
> > >       The problem is in the political structure of the NFB itself.  The 
> > > lack of meaningful input is evident to those who would only observe.  
The 
> > > reason that so many do not see it is in part because they agree with 
the 
> > > political structure and therefore don't see the need to challenge it 
> > > directly.  An example.  
> > > 
> > >       After an attempt was made to get the membership to have an
> > > opportunity to vote on re instating Jamal Mazrui into the organization
> > > after he was expelled by means of having the general membership have a
> > > chance to vote on it, the National Board blocked the opportunity for 
he
> > > membership to vote.  After that occured, the NFB constitution was 
changed
> > > so that it would take four or five state presidents and/or national 
board
> > > members to sign off on any members request to take a similar issue to 
the
> > > board.  That additional hurdle to have a chance for the common member 
o
> > > have a vote is the kind of political games which offend many.  And of
> > > course, the general membership approved the changes, thereby tightening 
> > > the national boards power over the membership politically. 
> > > 
> > >       I think for many in the NFB, the organization is similar to a 
> > > religious experience, where they feel they finally belong.  The group 
> > >  cannot do any wrong, and if it could be considered that it may have 
made 
> > >  a mistake, it is viewed as only marginal and isolated.  With this 
> > > attitude there is no desire or need to analyse and examine what is 
really 
> > > happening, that would turn over the boat and open up lines of attact 
from 
> > > the "enemies outside".  As long as this kind of "close the circle" 
belief 
> > > system exists in the NFB, the basic lack of meaningful political 
> > > involvement will continue.  There are those in the NFB who basically 
talk 
> > > among themselves about internal political structure but don't step up 
to 
> > > the plate to try and make a change.  I think part of the reason for 
lack 
> > > of attempting to make a change is the knowledge that it is a very hard 
> > > road to take, fraught with lots of obsticles.  One of the greatest 
> > > obsticles is the memberships lack of understanding and possibility of 
> > > turning on them personally.  
> > > 
> > >       Have a nice day.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Jim Marks wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Montanans are an independent lot.  We take rugged individualism to
> > > > extremes, and view national organizations with mulish skepticism.  
> > > > 
> > > > As a committed Federationist, I have encountered much resistance to 
our
> > > > organization from other Montanans.  Presumably the reluctance to
> > > > cooperating with national authorities stems from the cowboy 
libertarianism
> > > > for which our state is so infamous.  But I don't think we can blame 
the
> > > > independence streak for anti-NFB rhetoric.  I believe the opposition 
to the
> > > > NFB comes as a direct result of people's relationship with blindness. 
 Our
> > > > organization, imperfect as it is, unquestionably challenges 
veryone's
> > > > understanding of blindness.  Many are comfortable with attributing
> > > > blindness as the problem rather than grasping that attitudes are the 
real
> > > > oppressor.  Time and time again I have witnessed people react 
negatively to
> > > > the NFB because the leadership presses hard for positive attitudes,
> > > > personal accountability, and self-determination.  As a friend of mine 
who
> > > > just attended his first convention last year said, the NFB raises the 
bar.
> > > > It develops our own self-awareness and changes what it means to be 
blind.
> > > > Some react well by getting more involved and trying to shape our
> > > > organization through the involvement.  Others elect to criticize the 
way
> > > > things are done without contributing to the movement in meaningful 
ways.
> > > > Some even stoop to really silly name calling and baiting.  But as for 
me, I
> > > > am very glad to be a Federationist.  And if such affirmations make me 
seem
> > > > like a mindless follower, think again.  I am a Montanan and am 
skeptical as
> > > > hell of anything that looks too good to be true.  I am involved 
because of
> > > > the principles and because I get a direct infusion of ever increasing
> > > > expectations for myself.  No, we're not a bunch of super blind folk; 
we are
> > > > just doing the best we can.  I, for one, have much to learn.  And I 
have
> > > > much to teach.  Isn't the essence of the NFB this collective effort 
to do
> > > > something about negative attitudes and low expectations?  And maybe, 
just
> > > > maybe, the harsh criticism about the way we do things really is 
nothing
> > > > more than a mask for complacency with shame and second class status?
> > > > 
> > > > Jim Marks
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > At 06:22 PM 4/13/1998 -0700, Daveed Mandell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >How frightening that only Harvey has the guts to speak out about 
problems
> > > > >re the NFB.  It's horrible, and a commentary on what the national
> > > > >leadership has done to the membership.
> > > > >Even the late Dr. Isabelle Grant, a marvelous, brilliant human 
eing,
> > > > >remarked to me, during the 1971 convention in Houston, that the 
membership
> > > > >was like a bunch of sheep!
> > > > >She was right then, and is right now!
> > > > >Whatever good the NFB does is lost to so many due to its 
ndemocratic
> > > > >structure, leadership and actions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > +----------------------------+
> > > |  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
> > > |      stevez@ripco.com      |
> > > +----------------------------+
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> >           Steve Jacobson
> >           National Federation of the Blind
> >           3M Company 
> >           E-mail:  SOJACOBSON@MMM.COM
> > 
> > The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 3M Company.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> +----------------------------+
> |  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
> |      stevez@ripco.com      |
> +----------------------------+
> 
> 
> 
--
          Steve Jacobson
          National Federation of the Blind
          3M Company 
          E-mail:  SOJACOBSON@MMM.COM
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 3M Company.
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------