By Joe Orozco
Editor's Introduction: Joe Orozco has just recently joined the movement
of the Federation, but he has jumped in with both feet and become an active
member of the Texas affiliate. Here is a message he posted to the NABS list
serve shortly after Washington Seminar.
Dear listers,
It has often been said that a sharp tongue is no indication of a keen mind.
I personally believe that this holds true, particularly in the grip of a heated
discussion where some choose to blindly argue despite their conscious ignorance
and/or stubborn refusal to admit that they are wrong.
It goes without saying that Washington seminar was an incredible experience
for an NFB rookie. I think it was the best introduction to the vast organization
and the individuals who wholeheartedly uphold its principles, not to mention
the legislation it has fervently fought to pass into federal law. I agreed with
the three issues discussed. In fact, at my debate tournament this past weekend
following the seminar I thought it would be interesting to run a case concerning
the third issue regarding the distribution of electronic instructional materials
in a specialized format.
After consulting with my partner, we decided to run it the first round since
we were going to be the government, or affirmative. In her first constructive
speech my partner drew out the case, explaining each component of the proposal
and the criteria of equality we would be using as a means for the judge to weigh
the round. Well, the first guy for the opposition stands to deliver his speech,
and damned if he did not say our plan was impossible because the education system
as a whole was prejudice if not downright racist. To make improvements for the
blind would be showing favoritism, and unless the government was willing to
change the content of all textbooks and standard tests to include an equal recognition
of all minorities, our plan should not even be entertained. Of course my retort
was that whereas racism was a societal problem that could not be changed from
one day to the next, here was an opportunity to stop wishing for equality and
actually implement legislation to physically do something about it. I also pointed
out that his claims of total racism in the content of all instructional materials
were exaggerated, because as you will all know, the SAT and ACt have both included
passages about famous non-Caucasian celebrities. Well, the opposition scoffed
and raised a counter plan that would require all publishers to rewrite its materials
so that it was not racially exclusive. They held steadfast to their plan despite
our point that in such a scenario the costs would far exceed the benefits, not
to mention that their plan did not even acknowledge our criteria because blind
students would still be at a drastic disadvantage. In the end, the judge's ballad
ranked Texas over Tennessee.
Well, the round was so successful that my partner and I decided to run it one
more time during the fifth round against a team from a prestigious school in
Louisiana whose name will not be mentioned here. Same case, same components,
only this time we ran criteria of cost benefit analysis. Their first argument,
making publishing companies switch to a universal format would put them in a
severe economic constraint. We argued that it would be the distribution center
and not the publishing companies who would incur the bulk of the costs. They
blatantly made it clear that a one time cost to change to a new electronic format
was by far more critical than the long term education of a blind child. When
asked for specific figures they declined comment. They totally brushed off my
partner's argument that in the status quo blind students are prevented from
competing on an equal level with their sighted counterparts. Their second error,
they referred to blind individuals as "mentally impaired." May we
think of it as a slip? Not when the term was thrown around more than once during
the same speech. Their only other argument that mattered was that there was
no precedence giving the government authority to interfere with private businesses
in any way. His specific words were: "I challenge the government to produce
a precedence with a case with which the precedence can be supported." Quite
frankly, I did not relish what I did, but desperate times call for desperate
measures, so in an eye blink a copy of the ADA was out of my briefcase and in
the hands of my partner who was due to deliver our closing arguments. As a case
in point we brought out the lawsuit against AOL, citing the federal government's
power to regulate the company in cases where it does not make its product accessible
for the blind. As we made our way out of the building my partner dropped her
own briefcase, threw her arms around my neck and through fits of laughter told
me of the shocked expression on the other team's faces when we firmly met and
accomplished their trivial challenge. The final decision on all three ballads?
Texas over Louisiana.
And so we finally arrive at the main point of this email, and that point is
that this weekend I was proud to have joined the NFB! Beside the selfish fact
that it provided me with a winning case, it felt great to be able to argue for
an important cause. Most importantly, I felt confident after having attended
Washington seminar to sway a lot of the misconceptions sighted people have assigned
to blind individuals. This was most evident in my own partner, who stood by
me and argued the case as though she herself was blind and was in desperate
need of these instructional materials. The overriding point here is that even
though this was just a debate competition, it goes a long way in showing just
how little importance the general public gives to the blind, that is until the
NFB takes the initiative to, as my TABS president put it, "pound the pavement
of Capital Hill," to make our needs known, to insist that our rights be
met, to demand the reinforcement of equality and in very short terms as it was
phrased at the Washington seminar, to change what it means to be blind.
Congratulations NFB, because although Abraham Lincoln said it was a journey of a thousand miles, at least we have taken the first step.
Best regards,
Joe Orozco