[acbny-l] FW: [leadership] FW: [Nabs] Fw: Ed and Toni Eames Speak Out on Behalf of Consumer Choicein Rehabilitation: Bravo!
- From: "Mann, Jean" <Jean.Mann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: 'ACBNY' <acbny-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:32:32 -0400
This is long, but very interesting. Ed and Toni Eames will be familiar to
Newsreelers. Thgey have been staunch Federationists. Their decision must
be causing them a great deal of heartache (although I'm glad they made it).
-----Original Message-----
From: Thom, Jeff [mailto:jeff.thom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:07 PM
To: 'leadership@xxxxxxx'
Subject: [leadership] FW: [Nabs] Fw: Ed and Toni Eames Speak Out on
Behalf of Consumer Choicein Rehabilitation: Bravo!
This is big news and its already spread over California like wildfire. I
commend the Ames/' for taking a very difficult action, given their devotion
to NFB over the years.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hodge, Charles - SOL [mailto:Hodge.Charles@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:51 AM
To: 'jeff.thom@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: FW: [Nabs] Fw: Ed and Toni Eames Speak Out on Behalf of
Consumer Choicein Rehabilitation: Bravo!
-----Original Message-----
From: Reagan D. Lynch [mailto:rdlynch@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 12:37 PM
To: ABLA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fw: [Nabs] Fw: Ed and Toni Eames Speak Out on Behalf of
Consumer Choicein Rehabilitation: Bravo!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe Griffith" <Gabe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Becky Welz" <beckywelz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <JAMoll3@xxxxxx>; "Discussion List for the National Alliance
of Blind Students" <nabs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<CCB-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Chris Foster" <fostercj@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
<GDUC-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <CA_BlindStudents@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:33 AM
Subject: [Nabs] Fw: Ed and Toni Eames Speak Out on Behalf of
Consumer Choicein Rehabilitation: Bravo!
Here's something I thought everyone might be interested in
seeing.
Gabe
> The letter below is forwarded from the GDUI Friends List Serve:
>
> >Ed Eames, Ph.D. / Toni Eames, M.S.
> >
> >Authors / Educators / Disability Advocates
> >
> >
> >3376 N. Wishon, Fresno, CA 93704-4832
> >Phone: (559) 224-0544 Fax: (559) 224-5851
> >E-mail: eeames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >July 14, 2003
> >
> >Open Letter to NFB
> >
> > Ed and Toni Eames
> >
> >Since moving to California more than 15 years ago, we have
been
> >actively involved in the Federation at the local, state and
> >national level.
> >
> >In Fresno, we have each served as president of the local
chapter
> >and currently Toni is vice president and Ed is treasurer.
Our
> >activities include fund raising, blindness awareness
education
> >and advocacy.
> >
> >For the last several years, Ed served on the NFB California
state
> >board and we have co-chaired the Guide Dog Committee. Ed has
> >chaired the state scholarship committee for the last four
years
> >and three years ago we did a joint presentation at the state
> >convention.
> >
> >At the national level, both of us have been field
representatives
> >and log approximately 20 hours a month on national
activities.
> >This includes advocating for blind prisoners and fostering
the
> >NFB political agenda. Both of us attended a leadership
seminar
> >validating both our value to the organization and commitment
to
> >its growth. Three of our articles have been published in
kernel
> >books and two were the title articles. Since 1996 we have
taken
> >on responsibility for setting up and maintaining the guide
dog
> >relief areas at national conventions. That commitment
resulted
> >from a challenge issued by Dr. Jernigan at the 1995
California
> >state convention, when he said that if we thought we could do
a
> >better job than the hotels were doing, prove it! We did
> >beginning in Anaheim and received kudos from him at the
banquet
> >for our efforts.
> >
> >We are sorry to say that these activities will now end. As a
> >result of the passage of Resolution 2003-21, which places
those
> >of us choosing partnership with guide dogs in the status of
> >second class citizens, or more properly, second class
> >Federationists, we are leaving the organization. This is
done
> >with deep regrets, since NFB has been a major part of our
lives
> >for the last 15 years.
> >
> >
> >Although we have heard it argued that the resolution only
refers
> >to informed choice, the fact that guide dogs are mentioned as
one
> >of two practices and policies namely the use of sleep shades
and
> >guide dogs, leaves little room for misunderstanding of the
intent
> >of this resolution.
> >
> >Informed choice, as defined by 2003-21 means that a consumer
has
> >very little in the way of choice. If the training center has
a
> >policy against guide dogs on the premises or no guide dog use
> >while the student is in the program, the choice is either to
> >break the partnership or so constrain it that the team's
efficacy
> >is undermined. To us, saying to an applicant for
rehabilitation
> >services, you have the choice of leaving your preferred
mobility
> >tool behind or go elsewhere is the equivalent of a restaurant
or
> >hotel manager saying we have a no dogs policy, but there are
lots
> >of other nice restaurants or hotels you can go to!
> >
> >The concept of consumer empowerment, another basic tenet of
the
> >Rehabilitation Act, is negated by 2003-21. From Peggy
Elliott's
> >exhortation to pass the resolution, it appears that only
> >organizations, not individuals, have the right to challenge
> >agency practices and policies. This runs counter to all we
> >believe in and undermines the notions of informed choice and
> >consumer empowerment.
> >
> >When Toni did an internship at the Queens, New York
Lighthouse in
> >1968, she was required to kennel her guide dog in the
basement
> >during the work day. This extended separation had a negative
> >impact on both Toni and her guide dog Charm. As an
individual,
> >Toni tried to get the policy changed, but was basically told,
> >abide by our rules or go elsewhere. The Lighthouse probably
> >interpreted this as informed choice in the decades before
> >Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA of
> >1990. Subsequently, the policy was changed and guide dogs
were
> >welcomed in this institutional setting.
> >
> >More recently, we have been advocates for a blind prison
inmate
> >named Willie Lee Johnson (see articles in Braille Monitor).
> >During the decade Willie was incarcerated in California
prisons,
> >he filed many complaints against the practices and policies
of
> >the California Department of Corrections (CDC). As a result
of
> >his individual efforts, CDC changed its policies concerning
> >access to libraries for blind prisoners, training for jobs in
the
> >prison system, inmate use of white canes, access to braille
and
> >cassette materials, etc. Despite living in one of the most
> >repressive institutional settings in our country, Willie
proved
> >that an individual can make a difference and get things
changed.
> >Unfortunately, 2003-21 states that individuals cannot change
the
> >environment in which they receive rehabilitation services.
If
> >this position is followed, those receiving rehabilitation
> >services would have fewer rights than convicted felons!
> >
> >
> >Federation philosophy has been expressed in a number of
phrases
> >exemplifying its basic tenets. Among these are: "We're
changing
> >what it means to be blind" and "With proper training,
blindness
> >can be reduced to a mere nuisance". The Federation's battle
cry
> >for security, equality and opportunity resonates as the
> >ideological basis of the organization. 2003-21 is a
fundamental
> >violation of these basic themes.
> >
> >In the resolution, comparison is made between rehabilitation
> >agencies and colleges. As a retired professor of
anthropology,
> >Ed takes great exception to the misreading of the history of
> >higher education in the last century. The notion that
college
> >students have no influence or power over course offerings and
> >personnel issues disregards the student movement of the 1960s
and
> >its aftermath. As a result of the struggle for student
power, Ed
> >sat on curriculum and tenure and promotions committees with
> >students, who had considerable input in the decision making
> >process.
> >
> >The goal of a college education is to provide a broad range
of
> >knowledge to its graduates. Thus, within the language
> >requirement, students have options. They can take French,
> >German, Spanish or even sign language. The goal of a
> >rehabilitation center is to provide a wide range of
blindness
> >skills for its graduates. Thus, within the orientation and
> >mobility requirement, students should also have options.
> >Although learning to use a cane is an important skill, it is
not
> >synonymous with independence. We need to assure newly
blinded
> >individuals that they can leave their homes and be mobile,
> >whether they choose to do so with a cane or a guide dog.
> >
> >In thinking about and discussing the unique features of NFB
> >training centers such as those in Louisiana, Minnesota and
> >Colorado, we concluded it was the inculcation of positive
> >attitudes, rather than the mastery of particular skills that
was
> >distinctive. Many other centers have excellent training in
> >braille, computers, cane mobility and daily living skills,
but
> >NFB centers foster feelings of empowerment, independence and
> >enhanced self esteem. To deny a segment of the blind
community,
> >namely those partnered with guide dogs, the opportunity to
> >develop these positive attitudes runs counter to everything
we
> >believe the largest consumer advocacy organization of the
blind
> >in the United States should stand for.
> >
> >Several points need to be made about informed choice and
> >rehabilitation training centers.
> >
> >1. If the state does not have the money to send an applicant
for
> >services to the center desired, then there is not much
choice.
> >
> >2. If a center that welcomes guide dogs is geographically
distant
> >from home and family, the applicant is forced to choose
between
> >the guide dog and the family.
> >
> >3. As the NFB model takes hold across the country under the
RSA
> >leadership of Commissioner Wilson, choices will become even
more
> >limited. Since the NFB rehabilitation training center model
is
> >being promoted as the best, and restrictive guide dog
policies
> >are also promoted, informed choice will diminish.
> >
> >Once again, it is with deep regret that we leave the
Federation,
> >an organization we have participated in and supported for 15
> >years. However, we cannot take the pledge to support all
> >Federation policies when we believe Resolution 2003-21
suggests
> >guide dogs are an inferior mobility mode when compared with
> >canes, and, therefore, those selecting guide dogs, become
part of
> >a second class segment of the blind community.<x-flowed>
>
>
> ************************************************************
> * ACB-L is maintained and brought to you as a service *
> * of the American Council of the Blind. *
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: acb-l-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: acb-l-help@xxxxxxx
>
>
____________________________________________________________
This list is sponsored by The National Alliance of Blind
Students.
To subscribe send a blank e-mail to:
mailto:nabs-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe
List archives are located at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabs-l/messages/
You can manage your subscription at
http://intenex.net/lists/listinfo/nabs
You can also check out NABS by calling 1-800-555-8355
Then entering 12NABS (126227) at the promt.
You can reach the list administrator at
mailto:nabs-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
* This message has come to you from the ACB Leadership list: a *
* special List for the leadership of the American *
* Council of the Blind. Please use discretion when *
* disseminating information from this list. *
Other related posts:
- » [acbny-l] FW: [leadership] FW: [Nabs] Fw: Ed and Toni Eames Speak Out on Behalf of Consumer Choicein Rehabilitation: Bravo!
