by Winifred Downing
In the September 2003 issue of “The Braille Forum,” Carson Wood, immediate past president of the ACB chapter in Maine, wondered why the American Council of the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind staunchly resist becoming one single organization pursuing solutions to the many problems which continue to cause difficulties for people who are blind. No one doubts that the number of people who would be involved, the concentration of outstanding talent that would be accumulated, and the monetary advantages that would accrue would produce an extremely strong organization with far greater influence than either group can bring to bear working alone.
Let us, however, examine some of the deep philosophical disagreements which make such an accommodation all but impossible. These are not petty differences arising from old fractured relationships and deep personal resentments; rather, they are basic tenets on which each organization rests.
Perhaps one of the easiest ways to illustrate such disagreement arose some years ago when the California Council of the Blind sued the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to have detectable warnings placed at the edges of the platforms so that people using white canes could enter and leave trains safely. Ten blind people had been among the many who had fallen onto BART tracks before this action was taken, but the NFB joined with BART to oppose it. NFB insisted that people who had successfully completed orientation and mobility training would not need this accommodation, and providing it was a waste of money. The organization also maintained that the presence of the textured edges constituted a daily reminder to prospective employers and to the society in general of the inabilities of blind people. The CCB suit was successful, but both organizations remained committed to the attitudes that fostered the expenditure of huge amounts of time and money.
Another source of division is the electoral process. The ACB, to avoid the very real possibility of being governed by a dynasty of strong individuals and to ensure a steady flow of new people in responsible positions, imposes term limits on its officers and directors. The president and other officers are permitted only three two-year terms. The NFB, on the other hand, believes that unanimity of approach and consistency in action are so important that officers may hold their jobs indefinitely. When new people are elected to responsible positions, there is nothing like the campaigning and investigation that characterize the ACB elections.
Freedom of expression is a value ACB fosters in the ACB e-mailing discussion lists, the letters to the editor in “The Braille Forum,” and the emphasis in structuring committees to provide broad member representation. NFB offers no such opportunities in the belief that public airing of differing views within the organization discourages cohesiveness.
In the matter of services offered to members, too, the NFB and the ACB vary considerably. ACB has an 800 number available every day of the year including the Washington Connection and provides ACB Radio to bring information to blind people all over the world. NFB’s free services cover the national job bank and are otherwise associated mainly with people attending the national convention, hotel subsidies and a hospitality room with readily available food.
Anyone who wishes to do so may visit the ACB Washington office and/or secure needed information on monetary aspects of the organization, but I have never heard that this openness is an NFB practice.
NFB is loath to accept — and may even resist — having guide dogs accompany their partners who attend orientation centers. The NFB centers also believe that students should be taught to perform the tasks connected with independent living skills under sleep shades because their vision may not remain stable, thus requiring them to behave as totally blind individuals. ACB recognizes that, though learning good orientation and mobility skills is an absolute necessity, people may retain their guide dogs as their chief means of mobility. The ACB philosophy also accepts the idea that people with low vision need to be taught how to use their remaining sight advantageously.
With regard to the operation of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the NFB-trained commissioner has been able to alter the idea of a successful case closure to exclude employment in a workshop, ostensibly with the aim of providing better employment opportunities to people who are blind. Many of the blind people growing up today have other disabilities in addition to blindness that may make industrial work the best employment possibility open to them. With this recent rehabilitation approach, will they, then, be denied the mobility training to travel to the job site or perhaps the training in braille necessary to read appropriate instructional materials?
All of these matters are essential to the philosophy underlying the blindness field, not reflective simply of minor irritations kept alive by disgruntled individuals in the two organizations. May the ACB continue to adhere to the organizational goals it has adopted!