From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Nfb Bbs Censorship??
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:39:16 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: 24178

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hello, Steve.

Thank you very much for a calm, sober-minded, well-reasoned post (the
one I am responding to here).  I truly appreciate reasoned dialogue of
the caliber you evince in this message.  You raise valid questions and I
shall endeavor to comment upon them in the spirit of reason in which you
made them.

In a message to Mike Freeman <01 Aug 92 02:51> Steve Richards wrote:

 SR> Quoting Mike Freeman to Steve Richards 21 Jul 92 21:41:08

 > MF> I'd agree with that.  However, he
 > MF> was/is a convenient focus for
 > MF> vitriole  and symbol for the issues
 > MF> which NFB has chosen to take stands
 > MF> on.

 SR> Hi Mike, yes, that's true.  Indeed any
 SR> highly visible person is a target
 SR> for attacks.  Let me say that I am not
 SR> a rabid Kenneth Jernigan hater.
 SR> To be such I would have to know him
 SR> personally, and I don't.  Neither do
 SR> I know for certain whether he should
 SR> wear a martyr's crown or a devil's
 SR> horns, but it is a question which I
 SR> would like to answer to *my*
 SR> satisfaction to *my* standards of
 SR> accuracy.  I'm not at all sure I can
 SR> do that, for emotions run high on both
 SR> sides of the fence and often
 SR> anyone trying to get at the truth of
 SR> who and what the man is finds
 SR> himself caught in cross-fire.  But it
 SR> does seem to me that not every
 SR> attack on Kenneth Jernigan can come
 SR> from irresponsible, spiteful,
 SR> vengeful people; the odds are against
 SR> that.  So if some of those
 SR> attacking him are responsible and not
 SR> spiteful and not vengeful, why are
 SR> they doing it?  Are they without just
 SR> cause?  Possibly.  But not, in my
 SR> mind, definitely.

Your points are well-taken.  First, I would say that Dr. Jernigan ought
not to be regarded as either a martyr or a person wearing devils' horns.
He is a man who, as President of the Federation for many years and as
the appointed Executive Director of the Federation under President
Maurer, was and is charged with articulating and carrying out NFB
policies as determined at the NFB national convention through
resolutions or by a reasonable extrapolation therefrom.  To my mind, he
is a colleague in the Federation whose opinions I value (but do not
always share) and whom I respect.  To me, however, as one of our
prominent spokespersons, he is due no particular adulation.  I know that
some will not believe it but I am not at all sure he really wants
adulation; anyone who blindly follows one individual can be swayed to
follow another with equal unthinking steadfastness.

Of course, Dr. Jernigan is other things to other people.  I did not go
to the Iowa Commission for the blind when he was its director; hence I
do not look upon him as a saviour in any sense of the word.  But, as a
good rehab man (and, IMHO, he was superb), those whom he brought out of
the depths of despair and whom he convinced that they could lead normal
lives and whom he gave the courage to do so legitimately see him as
something approaching, if not a saviour or a saint, at least a
benefactor.

Those who have been (either in the Federation or on the outside) in a
political tangle with him will see him in another light, of course.
Indeed, as a Federation spokesperson, as I said in my post previous to
this, enmity toward him was almost guaranteed.

Make no mistake:  Dr. Jernigan has made his share of errors as have the
rest of us.  In what people say about an individual, as you say, if
something persists, there *may* be a grain of truth.  However, consider
this:  those on the losing end of a political battle are bound to
perceive things differently from those who have won.  I only ask that,
in evaluating comments about Jernigan or the NFB, we all take
considerations of this sort into account and try to acknowledge that
things may not be as they seem.  To your credit, you do this, so my
comments are not aimed at you.

 > MF> That calls into question whether and
 > MF> to what extent one believes in
 > MF> democracy or the right of the people
 > MF> to choose whom they will.  To say
 > MF> that terms of office should be
 > MF> limited (in private organizations or in
 > MF> public office) is, in the end, to
 > MF> say that the public cannot be
 > MF> trusted  to make wise decisions
 > MF> (and, hence, that some artificial

 SR> Actually, no, sometimes the public
 SR> can't be trusted to make the right
 SR> decision, or else someone like Hitler
 SR> would never come to power.  Our
 SR> constitution has delays built into it
 SR> for the very reason that our
 SR> forefathers understood that sometimes
 SR> the public becomes emotional and
 SR> behaves like an unruly mob.  We have
 SR> laws to protect ourselves from
 SR> ourselves, and if we did not some who
 SR> hang politicians in effigy would
 SR> hang them in actuality, themselves
 SR> becoming more criminal than those
 SR> whom they detest.  Which says what?  I
 SR> don't know.  You see, Mike, I do
 SR> my darnedest to see both sides of an
 SR> issue, even when that leaves me
 SR> more confused than ever.  The sad
 SR> truth is that many cannot bring
 SR> themselves to do this, which is why
 SR> democracy is the rule of people
 SR> collectively, rational and irrational
 SR> ones, so that hopefully something
 SR> like sense will be the ultimate result.

Indeed, that is the article of faith from which we who believe in
democracy proceed and which is the wellspring of our representative
government and our democratic traditions.

You are absolutely correct; the Founding Fathers, while wishing to
enfranchise the people, in the end, for the most part, distrusted the
people, at least in the sense that they felt it necessary to put in
mediating institutions (for example, the Senate) to moderate the rule of
the rabble (in the House of Representatives).  There were, of course,
exceptions.  Madison and Wilson both thought that the people could be
trusted to rule, in effect, as closely to directly as possible.  Wilson
always maintained that, rather than their being a balance of separate
powers, the Constitution gave Congress the supreme authority.  We argue
about this still (Watergae and Irangate, anyone?).  But I digress.

The question which we face is this:  to what extent should we, the
people, in both government and private organizations, get the government
we wish and/or deserve and to what extent should we be safeguarded by
legal provisions from our own folly.  Although I think the Founding
Fathers were wise to put in checks and balances, I basically think that
the people should be allowed to get the government they choose.  This
is, however, a matter of debate, as you indicate.

 SR> Since I possess emotions, I too am
 SR> capable of knee-jerk reactions when
 SR> something pulls my own personal chain,
 SR> though I try to recognize it and
 SR> get past it to rational analysis.  Uh, well, I try.

The present post amply demonstrates this.

 SR> Yep, the people in NFB have every
 SR> right to pick who will lead them.  So
 SR> did the ancient Hebrews, but they
 SR> didn't always pick wisely.  Still,
 SR> they wanted a king to rule them, and
 SR> that's what they got.  Now that
 SR> I've argued myself in a circle, the
 SR> danger of playing one's own devil's
 SR> advocate, I'll say this:  My question
 SR> about whether anyone should be
 SR> allowed to remain in power perpetually
 SR> was inspired by this thought:
 SR> Limiting terms of office and such may
 SR> very well cheat us of the
 SR> continued leadership of good people
 SR> who wouldn't be corrupted by their
 SR> power, but it also protects us from
 SR> tyrants who would be.  And even
 SR> worthwhile dreams must alter with the
 SR> changing times.  Or at least grow.
 SR> Hence my thoughts about change and new
 SR> leadership.  A batch of new young
 SR> people following the same old leader
 SR> isn't the same thing as new
 SR> thinkers, not necessarily.  Are they
 SR> making their own dreams or
 SR> following someone else's?  Yes, I can
 SR> see the other side; maybe the
 SR> dream's *worth* following.  That's
 SR> what I'm trying to find out.  And if
 SR> it is not...

You've put your finger on the heart of the matter, I believe.  Most of
us, young and old, who are active in the Federation, consider the dream
worth following.  There are many, of course, who do not think so; they
have their own organization(s).  This is as it should be.

That said, however, I think that the foregoing discussion ignores a
fallacy which is assumed by most of the Jernigan-haters who make their
views known on this echo and elsewhere.  That fallacy is that somehow we
in the NFB have no choice but to follow Dr. Jernigan blindly and that he
has some sort of mesmeric hold upon us which is nearly impossible to
break.  One thinks of the religious cults such as that of the Moonies
and the "de-programmers" of whom one heard in the late 1970's.  Indeed,
I heard a teacher say to a blind student who had recently discovered the
NFB, that he (the student) should be de-programmed.  This view is not
aided by the practice of the NFB of not disclosing to the public
internal debates once a policy has been made.  Thus, the advantages of
having known, predictable policies at all levels of the Federation are
accompanied by the disadvantage of giving the impression to those who do
not have the time or the inclination to investigate the matter
thoroughly for themselves that NFB members are somehow under the spell
and demagogic influence of Dr. Jernigan.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Although few would believe it,
Dr. Jernigan is now an appointed official; he was an elected official
prior to Mr. Maurer's election to the Presidency in 1986.  As such, if
he failed/fails to carry out NFB policies to the satisfaction of the
rank-and-file, he could have been/still can be thrown out or fired.  To
be sure, he has much political influence and prestige and, like all
political leaders, will endeavor to see that policies of his liking are
adopted by the organization.  That's natural; we all would do the same
were we in his shoes.

But believe me, Dr. Jernigan is not indispensible.  Indeed, he stepped
aside as President in order not to remain in office so long that he
would grow senile therein while the troops would be reluctant to get rid
of him.

Also, even with long-time leaders, if they are not responsive to changes
in circumstances and policy, they will not last.  Dr. Jernigan and, more
importantly at this juncture, Mr. Maurer, *are* responsive to the wishes
of the rank-and-file.  It must be remembered that Mr. Maurer is of my
generation -- the first RLF wave.  We're in power now.

I shall give one further illustration of the lack of merit in the
Jernigan-as-dictator or Jernigan-as-brainwasher thesis and then have
done for a while.  I think people are becoming somewhat weary of my long
missives.  (BTW, to the tired and weary, I say this:  cease irrational
NFB-bashing and I'll cease responding in kind; keep it up and I'll
continue to argue NFB's case {grin}).  But back to the matter at hand.
The idea for our Braille bills in the various states did not, in the
end, come from President Maurer or Dr. Jernigan.  the NFB of Maryland
had introduced an early Braille into the state legislator in 1986 or
early 1987; it did not pass.  That was a state affiliate initiative and
there was no national policy re Braille literacy bills.  It was a 1987
resolution that made it NFB policy to seek enactment, state by state, of
bills to see that blind children had the right and opportunity to
receive instruction in Braille.  The implementing resolution was not
brought by Dr. Jernigan.  Nor was it brought by the Board of Directors.
No, it was brought by a man named Maurice Mines, who was a student at
the Washington State School for the Blind at the time and whose
imagination was fired by the possibility of legislating a solution to
the Braille literacy problem.

In the end, I feel, the best way to find out about NFB is to attend a
national convention and judge for oneself to what extent we're
bamboozled and to what extent we think for ourselves.

Steve, I really appreciate our rational discourse on this subject; I
really mean that.  We haven't thrown brickbats and have kept the
inflammatory rhetoric out of it.  That's as it should be and I commend
you for it.

Take care.

Cordially,

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
... *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