From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:19:48 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: 23850

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

To: mattioli@took.enet.dec.com (John R. Mattioli)

 Hello, John.

Thank you for a rational and thoughtful post.

In a message to All <17 Jul 92 18:45> John R. Mattioli wrote:

 JR> People are always saying what
 JR> they know to be true and often it
 JR> turns out that it isn't quite
 JR> true.  Anybody who reads any news
 JR> article without understanding
 JR> that fact (whether the article is in
 JR> the Monitor, the Forum or the
 JR> New York TImes) is only fooling
 JR> themselves.  Reporters are supposed
 JR> to be impartial, but I don't buy that and haven't for ages!

Absolutely.  In reading anything, one must always keep in mind the
source(s) from which information was obtained and one must be alert for
the bias(es) of the writer(s).

I think that some reporters try to be objective; some try far harder
than others and one can infer from their writings how hard they tried by
how many "loaded" phrases they use.

 JR> This is all very interesting of
 JR> course, but it doesn't answer Tim's
 JR> question.  The question is, "Did the
 JR> sysop (or sysops) of the NFB
 JR> board censor this article?"  I suspect
 JR> that they did, and I believe
 JR> there may be good reasons for them to
 JR> do so.  Since you, David,
 JR> sent a message to Tim that I view as
 JR> somewhat less then friendly,
 JR> I'm interested in why you feel this
 JR> article should be censored.

The article contained misinformation, incorrect impressions given by
inference and some outright misstatements of fact (read lies).  Why
should we, the NFB, be responsible for distributing far and wide
misinformation about ourselves?  The information is certainly widely
available in any case.  Mr. Mazrui has posted one source for the
electronic version of the article; Mr. Cumings has cited another.
Anyone who wishes to read the article should have little difficulty in
obtaining a copy.

 JR> You mention lies, where are there
 JR> lies?  You mention enuendo, where
 JR> is this enuendo?  ...

Let's take the lies first.  I shall not go thru the whole article here
as all the SysOps are paying for this and it ain't worth the money
<grin>.  I'll just cite a few.

Consider first Ms. Cunningham's statement that, in addition to
opposition from governmental agencies and private companies with whom
Dr. Jernigan (and, by implication, the NFB) have tangled, there exists
enmity of more significant impact from members of the blind community
who are disgruntled about the vast sums NFB spends to sue its affiliates
who get out of line in order to control (with the control of his
hand-picked Board of Directors) the blind agenda of this country.  To
begin with, note the inference that Dr. Jernigan *is* the NFB and the
NFB he.  This simply is not the case.  Come to the NFB conventions and
see for yourselves.  Next, note the assumption that the board is
"hand-picked".  Certainly Dr. Jernigan, Marc Maurer and the other top
leaders of the Federation make their preferences for membership on the
Board of Directors known.  Certainly they have influence.  This is a
long way, however, from saying that the board is hand-picked.  The
nominees must be elected by the convention and, furthermore, nominations
can be (and are) made from the floor for each elective office of the
National Federation of the blind.  Now consider the assertion that NFB
sues its state affiliates to control the "blind agenda" of the country.
Certainly we of the NFB would like a large say in what goes on in the
blindness field.  We already have it.  But we aren't suing our
affiliates to keep control of what's said and done by others **except
when it is done in our name**.  For example, in California, Mr. Acosta
maintained that the NFB Board of Directors had no right to take
disciplinary action wrt him or his followers and that, whatever
happened, he'd not obey any instructions from the NFB Board, anyway.  He
was unwilling to accept the Board's judgment until the convention.
Under the circumstance, if the Board was to maintain its authority, it
had little choice but to take action.  Read the tapes of the meeting (we
of the NFB make them available uncensored -- all umpty-ump hours of it)
and see for yourselves.  Afterword, Acosta continued to raise money in
the name of the NFB and harassed our own fund-raisers.  We had little
choice to sue.

In Pennsylvania in, I believe, 1977, the NFB expelled the affiliate at
the convention because, as I understand it, the affiliate violated the
NFB Constitution's provisions for membership.  In fact, the then-NFB
affiliate, I understand, had a waiting-list for membership!  Yuch!  We
of the NFB could not tolerate that sort of funny-business and
exclusivity.

Another like (or at least stretch of the truth) came in the bald
assertion that NAC was always, is now and ever shall be an "independent
agency".  Poppycock!  AFB begat it; AFB funded it, for the most part,
for most of its life; without AFB support, it soon will die.  The simple
adage applies:  whose money I take, his song I sing.

One more example should suffice to illustrate the pattern.  Ms.
Cunningham writes of the fact that many NFBers during the 1970's
imitated many of Dr. Jernigan's habits. and tastes.  This was cited in
support of the charge of a "cult of personality" said to be fostered by
Dr. Jernigan.  No consideration was given to the possibility that the
idoliters didn't ask Dr. Jernigan's permission or that there wasn't much
he could do about it (short of dictatorial pronouncements).  Besides,
imitation is the highest form of flattery.  This is, though, beside the
point.  Ms. Cunningham stated that some of the habits imitated allowed
the blind imitators to lead fuller lives.  The *one* example she cites
is that of blind persons switching from the use of a dog guide to that
of a cane "which Dr. Jernigan favored".  First of all, the Iowa
Commission for the Blind was in the business of teaching O&M using a
cane.  Second, Dr. Jernigan has never said that it is necessary to give
up a dog in order to lead a full (or fuller) life.  And, most damning of
all, the assumption that giving up a dog leads to a fuller life is not
questioned.  Guide dog owners arise!  You have nothing to loose but your
slander!

So much for the lies.  Two instances of inuendo should be enough to
round out the picture.  First, Ms. Cunningham trots out all the old
hysterical material from the Des Moines Register during its attacks on
Dr. Jernigan in the late '70's.  For example, she relates the rumor that
there were plans to set up an antiaircraft gun on the roof of the
Commission.  To be sure, Ms. Cunningham stated that the rumors were
never proven and that no such gun was found but why bring unfounded
rumors up?  This is not a sociological study; it is a report on a leader
of an organization.  As such, such twaddle has no place in an objective
article.  I would go further:  in reporting the plethora of
anti-Jernigan articles in the Des Moines Register, Ms. Cunningham failed
to note that a relative of one of the Register editors was an official
with the Minneapolis Society for the Blind (MSB) with which the
Federation was then in dispute about policies and representation on
MSB's Board of Directors.  Such information puts a whole new slant on
the Des Moines rumor mill cum Register articles.

My second example comes from Ms. Cunningham's description of the work
rules at the National Center for the Blind.  Her phrasing makes it seem
a dictatorial edict that persons should be at work on time and that
someone checks this or that people aren't supposed to take coffee-breaks
until an allotted time.  How is this different from much of industry?
My work schedule is a bit more flexible but there *are* required hours,
lunch break duration requirements, etc.  At the very least, it's hard to
make a unique case out of the NFB's staff work rules when a good
fraction of industry's workers punches time clocks.  So much for lies
and inuendo.

 JR> I ask this question in all sincerity.
 JR> I don't know much about the
 JR> internals of the NFB and I'd like to
 JR> because I'd like to formualte
 JR> my own oppinion of the organization.

Call NFBNET and ask any questions you like.  I appreciate someone who is
curious and free-thinking enough to investigate things for himself.
Also fell free to correspond with me on GEnie or via the Internet.  I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have to the best of my
ability.

 JR> You asked Tim why NFB should waste
 JR> it's member's hard earned money
 JR> on this article?  I think there's a
 JR> good reason for NFB members to
 JR> read this article.  I think it's
 JR> highly instructive for members to
 JR> read what's being published about the
 JR> organizations they are
 JR> members of and I think they should
 JR> have the intelegence to figure
 JR> out for themselves what is true and what is not.

Absolutely.  My whole NFB chapter has read and discussed the article.  I
know of a number of other members of the NFB who have read the article.

The question is not whether the article should be read.  Rather, the
question is whether or not the NFB should help to spread the article by
allowing it to be placed on its BBS.  To the former question, I say an
emphatic "yes", although one should read the article critically.  To the
latter question I say "no".  The Democrats do not publish the Republican
platform in their own literature, or vice versa.  No one, I take it,
maintains that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are
undemocratic or evil in and of themselves.  Why should the NFB be held
to play by different rules and be held to a different standard of
conduct than the major political parties in this country?

 JR> I can understand TSI being somewhat
 JR> reluctant to publish the
 JR> Monitor article regarding their
 JR> (TSI's) questionable business
 JR> practices, they never claimed to be
 JR> democratic in any sense of the
 JR> word.  They're in the business of
 JR> making money for their owners the
 JR> way a for proffit business should be.
 JR> NFB, on the other hand, is a
 JR> different type of organization and I
 JR> believe it's members have a
 JR> right to know what's happening outside the organization.

Right you are.  They should be able to investigate for themselves and
other organizations don't need NFB to do their work for them.

-+----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Freeman <K7UIJ>    |       Internet: freeman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu
301 N.E. 107th Street   |       GEnie: M.FREEMAN11
Vancouver, WA 98685     |       Fidonet: Mike Freeman at 1.105/126
Telephone (206)574-8221 |       Braille forever!
... *The National Federation of the Blind is changing what it means to be blind.*
___ CRR QWK 1.40

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