Sharing The Same Prospective

Sharing the Same Perspective

Speech given by Frederick Driver at the Believe 2005 Canadian Federation of the Blind Convention

When I was asked to say a few words, from my perspective, as a sighted Federationist, I was honoured to be asked. But I was reluctant to accept. Because I couldn't think of anything to say. The reason I couldn't think of anything to say, is because I don't believe that my perspective as a sighted person is any different from the perspective of a blind person.

So many long-standing attitudes and structures are based on the misconception that the blind and the sighted are somehow fundamentally different. Well the news is: we're not.

There are two basic approaches to the question. One is the traditional agency or charity model, whereby the majority sighted establishment views the blind as less than equal to them, and as wards or recipients of their benevolence. The other approach is that of the organized blind movement: the National Federation of the Blind, and the Canadian Federation of the Blind. That is, an approach based on equality between the blind and the sighted; based on the blind speaking for themselves, and not being spoken for by do-gooders who presume to know better and pronounce on their behalf. Based on the empowerment of the blind as citizens and equals, competent and fit to take charge of their own destiny and affairs.

In comparing various countries in terms of their progressiveness, or regressiveness, in this regard, Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, a renowned constitutional scholar, professor, founder of the National Federation of the Blind, and a former-Canadian, said [I quote]: In Canada the story is perhaps the saddest and sorriest of all. In that northern clime an agency colossus bestrides the world of the blind from coast to coast, making free use of company-union tactics wherever any independent sentiment dares to express itself among the disorganized blind. Only a handful of undaunted spirits remain to hold the banner aloft in the deserted battlefield.

The charity mind-set has long had a stranglehold on blindness in the Canadian consciousness. I recall an occasion when a blind friend of mine and I were walking down a Victoria street, and a drunk beggar asked my friend for money. When the beggar realized that my friend was blind, he said "Oh! I give to the CNIB". The man was so drunk he couldn't have remembered his own name. Yet he was unable to tolerate the idea that he, a sighted homeless person, would ask a successful and respectable blind person for money. He felt an instant need to try and reverse the relationship. That is the extent of the stranglehold that the agency colossus and its charity model have on the public consciousness.

Dr. tenBroek succinctly states the central flaw of the charity model

[quote]:

.. There are ... large and powerful agencies ... which remain hostile to our movement ... The worst of these ... seeks to impose upon the blind not less but more authority and custody than ever before. Under the guise of professionalism, it would perpetuate colonialism. Its philosophy is a throwback to the age of the silent client, before the revolution in welfare and civil rights which converted the client into an active and vocal partner in the programming and dispensing of services. In its lofty disregard of the organized blind as the voice of those to be served ... [it] betrays its bureaucratic bias - that is, its distorted image of the blind client not as a PERSON to be SERVED but as a defective mechanism to be SERVICED.

Now; given a certain degree of progress that has been made in parallel struggles for economic and social equality and opportunity - like the civil rights movement, feminism, and diversity generally - one might have expected this backward attitude toward the blind to have died a natural death, and been replaced by one based on equality, respect, and self-determination. But this has not happened in Canada. The cause of its delay can be stated in one word. Fundraising. A massive charity establishment owes its very existence, its fundraising, to the public's continued misconception that the blind are charity cases. These money-makers on the backs of the blind, are, in the words of Dr. tenBroek: "the obsolete custodians ... who seek to defend their vested interest by subsidizing the ghost of the helpless blind man ..."

The charity or agency establishment has done much to improve its image. But not its substance. They use some of the right words. But there is a fundamental lack of democratic accountability in the charity model. Blind leaders are often appointed, as image-savers, as tokens, but there is no mechanism whatsoever for democratic input and control by the blind collectively. Indeed, I recall, when a blind colleague of mine and I suggested in a meeting that an agency for the blind should be ultimately accountable to the blind, this was received as a heresy against the established order, in which financial donors and sighted people hold the reins.

To illustrate my meaning, let me cite a Resolution of the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio [quote]: A sighted person was appointed as the temporary chair of the Bureau of Services for the Visually Impaired Advisory Committee because the chair was unable to contact the blind person SHE WANTED to appoint ... The obvious solution would have been to appoint one of the other blind members to serve temporarily ... We condemn and deplore the appointment of a sighted ... committee member as Chair when competent blind members participate actively on the committee and would be willing to serve ... Members of the NFB believe passionately that blind people have been subjected for so long to imposed leadership and control by the sighted that making such an appointment is particularly egregious ... The National Federation of the Blind of Ohio has always maintained that only those ELECTED to represent the blind can speak for the blind ...

I would like to share with you now, two statements by sighted people, that demonstrate the shift in thinking which must occur. They are examples of people making progress toward a better understanding. The sound of minds opening.

[I quote from: Walking Alone and Marching Together: A History of the Organized Blind Movement.]

Among the most striking and heartening examples of this new spirit of cooperation and understanding - as opposed to condescension and pity - is .. a prominent Lion and administrative assistant to [a] Congressman ... In the past ... the Lions, who have always felt a particular closeness to their blind neighbors, have done things FOR them rather than WITH them. [The Lion says:] I believe we are on the threshold of a new era ... I know that there are some of us in Lionism ... who feel that the blind are infringing on our right by conducting their own white cane drives, because the Lions for the past 25 years have honored White Cane Day. But the white cane is a symbol of blindness, and what more understanding and true spirit of Lionism could there be than to return the symbol of blindness to the blind and thank God they are able to carry their own banner ... I believe ... that it is time we better understand our relationship with the blind, and to do that we must better understand the blind. We should understand that you not only seek but are entitled to both social and economic equality; that you are normal people and as such you have the right of self-expression as individuals and through your organizations; that both federal and state agencies should consult with your representatives in formulating programs that concern your welfare, or further your opportunities ... To this end I believe we can work together as a team, and lend a hand when it is needed. I believe that it is far better that we learn the purposes and objectives of your organization and help you accomplish them rather than try to steer you on a different course. In short, I believe we should work WITH you rather than FOR you ..

That was the sound of a sighted old man's mind opening. Now let's hear the sound of a sighted young woman's mind opening.

[I quote from a document called "Enlightening the Sighted", by Rebecca R. Long ... [a] political science major at Gannon State University in Erie, Pennsylvania ...]

I was more than uncomfortable. It was my second day working as an intern for Leadership Erie, a leadership program for adults of the Greater Erie community in Pennsylvania, and here I was at lunch sitting next to the only disabled person in the group. Her name was Judy Jobes, and she was blind. "Disabled": that is how I thought of her at that lunch a little over a year ago. Now Judy is one of my closest friends and my greatest mentor in my career. She is anything but disabled. My understanding of blindness has grown because of Judy but even more because of the National Federation of the Blind. My experience with the Federation began in January of this year. I came home from class one day to find a message from Judy asking if I'd like to attend a conference in Washington, D.C., during which we would talk to Members of Congress about issues of concern to the National Federation of the Blind. I was hesitant but decided not only to attend the conference but to drive the six of us to D.C., since I would be the only one in the group with full sight. My friends and parents were baffled by this decision, dwelling on the burden they felt I was inflicting on myself. However, the opportunity to watch the political process in action shimmered before me, and I ignored the skepticism of my family and peers. Being a political science major, I couldn't pass up the chance to observe interest-group politics. Before the trip I envisioned learning primarily about advocacy; I wasn't thinking how much I could learn about blindness. Judy told me that the experience would change my life, but I didn't understand what she was talking about at the time. As I loaded luggage handed to me by my Federation companions, I began to get concerned. How was I going to guide all five of them at the same time? How much sight did each of them have, and how was it going to help? What if I did or said something that offended them? How much help was too much? How much were they depending on me? All of these questions pass through the mind of a sighted person when put in a situation dealing with a group of blind people for the first time. Finally I decided I couldn't worry about it, and if I did make a mistake there would be about 500 blind people at the conference who could let me know. Saturday there was a student seminar, and throughout the whole morning I was disturbed. These blind students were upset with the injustices of the educational system. It was clear that they felt cheated of their right to be considered equal to sighted students. I sat in the audience and thought to myself, "These students may be intelligent, but you cannot ignore the fact that they are blind and that blindness has to be considered disabling". I couldn't comprehend what it was these students wanted. By the time we sat down to lunch in the hotel restaurant, I was completely annoyed with myself for not being able to empathize with these students and the problems they were clearly having. But during that meal I slowly began to understand. After being handed a Braille menu, I realized that the waiters had assumed that I must be blind. After all, their reasoning clearly went, why would a sighted person be interested in attending a conference for the blind? Deep in conversation at the time, I didn't acknowledge the waiter when he brought my entree. Presumably in an effort to be helpful, he pushed the plate I was eating from away and pulled the new one across to rest in front of me. This simple act was so terribly patronizing that I suddenly started to realize what these students wanted - to be treated with decency and respect for themselves and their abilities. For the next five days I was shoved into chairs, grabbed by the arm, stared at, pointed to, and referred to (usually in a hushed voice) as disabled. Those who realized I could see cast sympathetic glances at me as if I'd been trapped into community service or something worse. Even the assistants in Congressional offices, many of whom had dealt with the Federation members before, didn't realize how offensive it was when they looked to me as a leader simply because I could see. In those six short days I began to see blindness as less a tragedy and more a simple albeit bothersome hindrance. I began to realize that Judy had asked me to attend, not because the Pennsylvania group needed sighted supervision, but because she knew that the experience would be invaluable to me. The philosophy of the Federation was evident once I allowed myself to see

it:

"Given proper training and opportunity, blind people can compete on terms of real equality with their sighted peers." The Federation's ability to organize is amazing; even the legislative offices in D.C. noticed and commented on it. With this kind of organization and efficiency brought to bear on the problem, obtaining proper training for all blind persons is a potential reality. The Federation does more than provide training, advice, and support for its blind members; it enlightens sighted people simply by the example set by those members. The achievement of the Federation's goal of ensuring that proper skills and attitudes are taught to blind people will help to dispel the misconceptions about blindness that are held by the general public. The organization has already done this for me.

That is the sound of a sighted young woman's mind opening.

The Canadian Federation of the Blind - the organized blind movement - is working for the empowerment of blind Canadians. For equality, respect, opportunity, and self-determination. It will bring the sighted and the blind alike to a more realistic and positive understanding of blindness. An understanding that blindness is just a human characteristic - not a tragedy. That blind people are normal people, who with training and opportunity, can compete on terms of equality with the sighted. The sighted must come to understand that the blind are not their helpless wards or dependents, and come to embrace them as equals and fellow citizens, competent to take charge of their own destiny and participate fully in the economic and social life of this country. In the United States, where the organized blind broke the agency stranglehold decades ago, remarkable progress has been made toward these goals. It is time to break the charity stranglehold in Canada, and to insist upon first-class, not second-class citizenship for the blind. It is a privilege and a joy to participate in this work.