holding membership in two organizations with different philosophys

American Council of the Blind and National Federation of the Blind. 

(ACB and NFB).

 

There are philosophical differences between the ACB and the NFB that make it difficult for me to understand how anyone could belong to both.  But that is a choice of each of us, and I'll defend people's right to make their own decisions. 

Some folks will say, "But we're all working for the same things."  But we're not.  It isn't that the NFB wears the black hat and the ACB wears the white hat.  It is that we represent two different approaches to running an organization.  The NFB is a tightly run organization from the top down.  In my opinion it has morphed into a National Agency.  Members are directed by the Central Organization, as are the state chapters.  But more important, members are no longer the central concern of the organization.  It's focus is on the development and maintenance of the Jernigan Center.  The organization has chosen to pattern itself after the Corporate Model. 

The ACB is the only Grass Roots Organization of the blind at the national level. 

The ACB gets its purpose and its strength from its many state, local and special interest groups. 

The ACB will continue to be the more democratic, open, representative organization just as long as we members bother to understand that it is our responsibility to participate and make certain that the ACB remains an open forum. 

Years ago I had this discussion with Kenneth Jernigan.  I had expressed concern that the NFB was taking a turn down the wrong road, cutting off local participation.  I had suggested that National Board members might be elected at the District level rather than being hand picked at convention.  In this way the members in the local areas would feel that they had someone they could bring their concerns before. 

"I don't delegate authority!" was Jernigan's reply.  End of discussion. 

Finally, when thinking that we are all working for the same goals, just imagine two countries, side by side.  One is run by a dictator and the other by an open, elected government.  Both nations say that they have the best interest of their people at heart.  But one government tells the people what their "best interests" are, while the other looks to the people to make those determinations. 

Both countries are successful.  But they are not working for the same goals. 

 

We can choose an organization in which we have the privilage of playing a meaningful rolde, or we can join an organization that will tell us what is best for us. 

 

Your choice. 

 

Curious Carl