From: Bill Reif 
Subject: Re: Jamal & NFB membership
On 1997-10-14 Harvey  said:
   >Hi Bill.  I likewise disagree whole- heartedly with the umbrella
   >approach to disabilities because all data indicates that it is a
   >proven failure everywhere it has been tried.  It is simply one
   >more attempt by bureaucrats and co-elisionists whose only agenda is
   >to preserve their jobs at our expense and use scare tactics in
   >order to get everyone into their fold by using that hackneyed old
   >argument that we all have to get together because times are hard
   >and services are being cut so we all have to present a united front
   >if we are going to keep any form of viable rehabilitation alive.
Thanks for the support.  I'm tired of going to CIL (Center for
Independent Living) meetings or reading their publications in which the
NFB, and to a lesser extent, the deaf community, are attacked for
wanting specialized services when all we really need, according to them,
as humans are food, clothing and shelter --- which can be provided to
everyone in the same manner regardless of disability.  One interesting
result of this is that blind people in public housing are put into
"accessible housing" which makes such units unavailable for the
mobility-impaired people for whom they were designed.
   >However, Jamal does have his constitutional right to his opinion
   >and as long as he goes through channels and presents his opinion
   >responsibly then there should be no problem.
I couldn't agree more.  We can't get into the business of policing
someone else's beliefs --- unless those beliefs translate into
activities which direct NFB resources to the promotion of a philosophy
or the accomplishment of ends with which we disagree.  Jamal's
insistence that computers would solve the problems of the blind and his
commitment of Federation resources toward that end played into his first
expulsion.  Jamal would not be the first Federationist to entangle a
chapter or affiliate in a coalition-directed initiative or an advisery
council which wants our resources, abilities and numbers more than it
does our philosophy.  Once entangled in such a group, it's hard to
resist their attempts to make you feel immoral for failing to drop your
issues and work toward the "greater good" their issues supposedly represent.
 I was called upon several years ago to sit on an advisory board for the
Springfield Mass Transit District, which was trying to increase the 
accessibility of the mainline system while maintaining some level of 
paratransit service.  Every suggestion I had which would make the system
(as opposed to the buses) accessible to the blind such as adding phone people 
willing and able to give helpful rout and schedule info or requesting 
that drivers call the stops were greeted with indifference to hostility 
because I was changing people's jobs, interfering with union contracts, 
or making demands that could threaten the good will toward wheelchair 
accessibility for which we should be grateful.  That's when I decided 
such suggestions were more appropriately implemented from outside the 
system.
In summary: while Jamal has the right to believe anything he wants, I
would be more comfortable with his assurance that he understands our
philosophy regarding the coalition and will drive the same direction we
are if called upon.  Having talked with him at length during the 1991 
convention, I echo the comments of others who say he will be an asset to
the NFB.
--Bill Reif
Springfield, Illinois
---
---------------