From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: "Blind Loyalty"
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:20:52 GMT
Reply-To: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23855

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hello, Jamal!

In a message to Mike Freeman <26 Jul 92 21:48> Jamal Mazrui wrote:

 JM> Hi Mike!  I think it is significant
 JM> that you cannot seem to express any
 JM> disagreements on issues with Jernigan.  Given the context
 JM> of the debate here about how democratic NFB is and given
 JM> your defense of that democracy and claims that you think
 JM> for yourself, I think it quite natural for me to ask you
 JM> to name some specific issues with which you disagree.  I
 JM> did not say that if you agree with an issue you did not
 JM> think for yourself in reaching that opinion.  Of course a
 JM> free thinker can arrive at the same conclusions as others.

Well, Jamal, in my last post on the subject, I gave you an answer of the
heart.  Obviously, it did not suffice so I will give you an answer of
the head.  In fact, having been in the NFB for over a decade before your
expulsion, you know the answer as well as I.  Before giving it, however,
I will say that anyone who agrees one hundred percent of the time with
someone else is either an automaton or a fool.  Being neither, I have
had my disagreements with Dr. Jernigan (as well as others) on matters of
policy and methods.  Sometimes my views prevailed; sometimes theirs did.
That is the essence of a democracy.

I did not say that I *could* not discuss disagreements with Dr.
Jernigan; I said, in effect, that I would not do so, giving the analogy
of a dispute within a family.  Here is the "head" answer.  When one
joins the Federation, one may receive a membership card, upon which is
written what is known colloquially as the "Federation pledge".  It goes
something like this:  I pledge to actively participate in the efforts of
the National Federation of the Blind to achieve security, equality and
opportunity for the blind, to support the programs and policies of the
Federation and to abide by its Constitution.  This means that I have
voluntarily pledged not to criticize the programs and policies of the
Federation in public outside the organization (after all, I do not have
to join the Federation) and that, in fact, I have pledged to actively
support the policies of the organization whether I agree with them or
not until I can get them changed.  Furthermore, the Federation
Constitution which I have pledged to support contains a provision that
Federation members, local chapters and state affiliates must not engage
in attacks upon the Federation or its policies outside the Federation
and must not, in effect, engage in behavior with the aim of causing
dissention for its own sake.  This does not mean that I cannot work for
changes in policy; it simply means that once a policy is set by
resolution of the NFB National Convention (or state affiliate or local
chapter, in cases where there is no national NFB policy) that I may not
openly attack the policy.  The purpose of these provisions is to present
a unified front to those who would oppose us or who need to know what
NFB policy is on a given issue without equivocation.

YOu may now argue that if Dr. Jernigan is not the Federation, it would
not hurt (and would help my case) to disclose some areas of disagreement
between him and me.  I answer that, as Executive Director, he is the
employee of the Federation -- he is, in fact, *my* employee -- and is
therefore obligated to carry out Federation policies.  To air our
disagreements in public would be a violation of my pledge to the
Federation in cases wherein Dr. Jernigan agreed with Federation policy
and would or could subject him to questioning regarding policies he, as
a member of the Federation, is pledged to uphold, in cases wherein he
disagreed with Federation policy.  I therefore will not discuss matters
of disagreement with Federation leaders, employees or members in public
forums such as this.

In a sense, though, all this pallaver is beside the point.  In many
ways, the Federation *is* a family; we care for and about each other; we
are supportive of each other in times of adversity and there is the
close-knit feeling that one gets in a close family.  I would therefore
be loath to criticize Federation policies or personnel in public even
were there no policies or tradition within the Federation on the
subject.  This sort of party loyalty Truman would have understood
perfectly.  It is the sort of party loyalty that has largely disappeared
during the last fifty years and whose demise is, in part, responsible,
IMHO, for the state of paralysis we findourselves in today in this
country.

Incidentally, I cannot help but reflect that public criticism of one's
spouse is a good way to start or exacerbate family strife.

Jamal, I realize that the foregoing probably will not satisfyeither you
or other NFB critics.  In effect, you (and they) consider the conditions
of membership unacceptable.  That is okay.  To those who maintain that
the organization is undemocratic, however, I say:  come to a national
convention -- come to Dallas in 1993 -- and see for yourselves.

Cordially,

Mike Freeman
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org