by Paul Edwards
I am on my way to work on a Monday morning and, as usual, my message is late. With articles elsewhere in this issue you will find lots of information about our current disagreements with the National Federation of the Blind. I was sorely tempted to add an editorial of my own on this subject and, in a way, I am about to do just that. But I am hopeful that this message will, instead, transcend the current dispute and speak to broader issues.
I have found myself thinking a lot about leadership lately. Part of the reason for this is that the decision to directly confront the Federation on this issue is not an easy one for me to take. Many of you know that I believe firmly that the blindness community is just too small to allow dissension to deflect attention away from the real, pervasive disadvantages that every blind person faces in our society. I have probably spent more effort than some members of ACB may regard as prudent on building a positive relationship with the NFB and its leadership. I would not change my actions if I could and, even now, I remain convinced that ACB has an obligation to people who are blind to continue to seek accommodation with Dr. Maurer and the Federation. That capacity to cooperate, though, must not be allowed to limit ACB’s efforts to articulate the policies adopted by our membership or to keep us from speaking for the many hundreds of thousands of blind people who have not chosen to join either national consumer organization.
It is this issue that I want to spend a little time discussing with you this month. Whether we admit it or not, both organizations of the blind claim to represent a constituency that is much larger than their memberships. Both groups attempt to articulate what we believe to be the interests of a broader population than those who have paid their membership dues and joined us. I take this responsibility very seriously but will freely admit that the exercise is flawed, presumptuous and imperfect. It is flawed because I am first and foremost required to abide by the policies adopted by ACB. Shocking though it may be to some, these policies may not altogether reflect the interests of the majority of people who are blind. Since I have no way of polling this population, all I can do is try to extrapolate their views from what I hear and see around me. I can also, of course, make the assumption that the democratic process of ACB and the open debate that surrounds each issue means our decisions reflect some approximation of views that others in the blindness community accept as representative. This, of course, is presumptuous because ACB members are very likely not analogous to the whole community of people who are blind. It is probable that the larger blindness community is poorer, more likely not to be working and less independent than our “average” member is. The process is imperfect because any microcosm of people who seek to articulate the views of a larger constituency are inevitably using a value system which is subjective and perhaps alien to the larger group they claim to represent.
When members of Congress claim to represent the American people and claim to know what they want and to speak for them, they are clearly, at the very least, exaggerating. What they are often doing is using the cloak of inclusiveness to promote an ideology that has nothing to do with what the majority are likely to want.
There is another parallel between the larger democracy and blindness consumer organizations. In many elections in this country the majority do not vote. Consumer organizations of blind people represent 10 percent of the blindness community at most and no more than 10 percent of those members are at conventions when decisions are being made. Some would argue that my obsession about speaking for the larger community of blind people and their views accords that community an importance it doesn’t deserve. After all, they choose not to vote or to be part of either consumer organization. Their disenfranchisement is a choice they make. There is certainly truth in that, but it is also true that, once elected to office, one must also represent interests that transcend those of the people who voted.
I could spend a whole book discussing this issue. I have barely scratched the surface and am certainly guilty of oversimplifying a very complex matter. I suppose that I must also admit that the arguments that follow are based on my notion of what is right. You will be glad to know that I do not propose to explore the basis of my particular value system here. You who voted elected me. You who are members didn’t tell those who voted not to elect me. Those who are not members of ACB didn’t choose to join just to defeat me. So here I am and you’re stuck with me and my particular morality for another two months.
I take my responsibility very seriously and I believe that ACB takes its responsibility seriously as well. You see, just as I have a value system that informs how I see my way forward, ACB has one too. I have to do my best to understand and articulate that value system. I believe that ACB believes that we have a responsibility to broaden the range of services and choices available to people who are blind. This translates into a generalization that, all other things being equal, blind people must have available to them the broadest range of options we can encourage. Beyond that, ACB believes that society has an obligation to spend resources and effort to assure that the needs of blind people are met.
While it is presumptuous for me to speak for the National Federation of the Blind, it would seem that their view of what blind people want and need is substantially different from ours. They seem to suggest that blindness service delivery systems have an obligation to assure that the training and competence of blind people is sufficient to enable people who are blind to survive whether society is inclusive or not. I think they would argue as well that it is more important that we persuade the larger society of our collective competence than it is to ask that society to provide an infrastructure that encourages our participation.
So, my friends, we are back to where we started. Who speaks for the blind? Is it the NFB with their expectation of blind people that is so different from ours? I believe not. Over half of the blind people in our society are over the age of 55. Well under 10 percent of the resources that go to training are allocated to that older population. Only a tiny proportion of the legally blind are totals. Many of those who are losing their vision struggle with whether they choose to see themselves as blind. Given these realities, the expectation that is at the heart of the Federation’s notion of what blind people must be and do seems to me unrealistic. Obviously we must work to improve training and services but ACB argues that we need to accept blind people where they are and need to make society accountable for the services that are provided. Beyond that we must be certain that our organization is open at all levels to input from those who, for whatever reason, choose not to join.
There is also one final viewpoint to consider. Perhaps neither consumer organization speaks for blind people. I have certainly suggested that the larger blind population is extremely heterogeneous. Do we do a good job of representing those with multiple disabilities? How well do we do in speaking for those who are deaf-blind? Are we sufficiently in touch with blind people from diverse racial and ethnic minorities within our society?
When all is said and done, though, I believe we do better to try to generalize our beliefs. We must recognize that this is an awesome responsibility and we should not take it lightly. Ideally we should seek ways to broaden the input we receive. I know that I believe that ACB has positively impacted the lives of blind people whether they are members or not. We have done this by valuing them and encouraging each blind person to value his or her own abilities. Beyond that we have demanded that society make traffic signals, television, curbs and subway platforms, and employment more accessible. These are examples that have one thing in common. They place responsibility on society and on blind people to work together to make things better.
When we speak for blind people, we insist that society listen too. That is as it should be. Blind people are citizens and people first. We are diverse and have different needs. ACB may not speak for all blind people but we stand for the rights of all blind people to be who they are and to be recognized and included in our communities.