“It has been wisely observed that philosophy bakes no bread. It has with equal wisdom been observed that, without a philosophy, no bread is baked. Let me talk to you then of philosophy.”
Kenneth Jernigan
In 1963, Kenneth Jernigan delivered a speech titled, “Blindness: Handicap or Characteristic?” In it, he argues that blindness is merely a physical characteristic of no greater or lesser significance than any other inherited or acquired characteristic such as age, height, education or ethnicity. This was a groundbreaking speech for its time in the blindness world. It flew in the face of established societal norms that permeated the blindness rehabilitation profession. But more importantly, the premise of this speech formed the bedrock of the National Federation of the Blind throughout the latter half of the 20th century and in the first decade of the 21st century. This philosophical corner stone is part of what attracted me to the NFB in 1995.
The idea that blindness is a mere characteristic saturated the NFB in all aspects; in its literature, its speeches, its training centers and its interactions with the rehabilitation arena. Although certain verbiage used in the speech is considered to be outdated by today’s standards, such as the use of the words, “handicapped,” or “negro,” the premise is timeless.
I thought of this speech the other day when a friend texted me from the NFB convention in Austin and said, “I hate the way people now say they identify as blind.”
This was startling to me as well. But Given the political climate we live in today, I wasn’t as surprised as I might have been 10 years ago. Upon searching the website of the NFB, I discovered that the idea of blindness as an identity has been germinating for several years. I found instances of it in panel discussions, in articles from the Braille Monitor and, of particular note, in several banquet speeches delivered by President Mark Riccobono. If you want an example of identity-based language in official NFB policy, check out Resolution 2024-21 on their homepage.
How did this happen? How did the NFB come to adopt a stance that is so antithetical to the worldview put forward by Kenneth Jernigan?
I posed this query (in typical snarky fashion) on my Facebook page and got a range of responses. One came from Julie Orozco. I’ve met Julie once or twice and she has a heart that resembles a grand snack from Cinnabon. She says:
“I think it’s a semantic issue. It’s like saying, identify as blind rather than using some sort of euphemism or saying that you’re not really blind. I don’t think it’s intended to be anything more or less than that. I don’t think it’s meant to be a full identity in any other sense than it’s blindness you identify with, not being cited or something else that’s not really admitting your blindness if that makes sense.”
This is one view and I’m sure Julie, as well as many other blind folks, believe that to be the case. However, I found comments from Briley O’Connor to be far more instructive. Briley is a current leader in the NFB. Here’s what she says in response to one of my comments:
“Why does blindness as a part of identity have to be a negative thing? I think, as society, our understanding of what makes up a person’s identity has evolved. Our identity is shaped by things like our race, gender, and yes… disability. I did answer your question, but perhaps was not clear. The increased diversity of the membership and those coming into leadership means that we, as an organization, are impacted by a broader spectrum of perspectives. Our identity is shaped by many characteristics… why is it so drastic to say blindness is one of them? I think we are doing more honest intelectual work around the actual impact of blindness systemically, not just as an individual characteristic. Having blonde hair is, arguably, a characteristic alone and not an identity, probably because, for the most part, it’s perceived and morally and socially neutral. It just is. It doesn’t impact my ability to participate in society. My blindness, on the other hand, does impact that. It’s not just dependant on my individual fortitude to solve for that. Yes, many things I can do with skills and opportunity. But it would be foolish to say that blind people do not face more barriers than others. Claiming something as an identity also means it can be something to be proud of. It frames something that could have been seen as shameful or negative into something positive. Perhaps that is more clear.”
Anyone who has either been involved in or closely studied the NFB would not be surprised by the infiltration of this concept into the jargon of the leadership of the NFB. I’ve been anticipating it for many years now. I expected it when I saw the formation of divisions, committees and groups within the NFB dedicated to race, ethnicity and sexual orientation; a practice that both Jernigan and Maurer chafed against during their leadership. And I knew it was coming when Riccobono dedicated an entire banquet speech to blind women in the wake of the sexual scandals of 2020. Any doubt I had was obliterated when I discovered that the NFB has a national committee dedicated to diversity, equity and inclusion. This, my friends, is what is known as, ideological capture.
I have already broadly outlined the Jernigan speech that I believe served as the foundation of the NFB’s core doctrine from 1962 to (roughly) 2016. These tenants were codified in 1993, when the NFB passed resolution 1993-01, which sought to strip away the stigma from the term, “blindness.” This removes any ambiguity from its guiding ethos. But where did the contrary notion of blindness as an identity come from?
The modern answer is easy. One need only glance at the news, social media and even pop culture to witness the mushrooming of concepts rooted in social justice. Even for casual folks who don’t traffic in politics, it is impossible to ignore. Progressive encroachment is always waiting just around the corner in an office conversation, at the next table in a restaurant or on a Facebook page that wasn’t intended to be political. But what was the genesis of the modern “woke” movement? How did it transform the NFB as it seems to have transformed many other organizations and institutions based in advocacy?
My limited research has identified two key milestones that have taken us to where we are now. The first occurred in 1977 with the passage of the Combahee River Collective Statement. This was a paper published by a group of black feminists that argued that systems of oppression come from an interlocking framework that had a disproportional effect on black women. The noteworthy aspect of it is that it was the first time that the phrase, “lived experience,” was used in an identity-based context. It also posited the theory that discrimination happens systemically, rather than on an individual basis.
Two other noteworthy items concerning the statement. It was named after the Combahee River Raid, carried out by Harriet Tubman in 1862 when she freed approximately 760 slaves from captivity. Also, many of the authors of the statement had backgrounds in various movements and causes rooted in Communism and socialism.
The Combahee River Collective Statement was a significant touchstone for Columbia law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw when she penned an essay in 1989 that was subsequently published in the University of Chicago Legal Review. It sought to high-light the intersection of race and sex in the framework of U.S. discrimination law. She was seeking to prove that legal arguments tended to focus on one identity, such as race or sex, rather than considering the disparate impact that discrimination might have on someone with multiple identities. That’s where the now all-too-familiar term, “intersectionality,” comes from.
There were two modern flashpoints that now drive the progressive push for the inclusion of identity-based policy. The first was the election of Donald Trump in 2016, which gave rise to the modern so-called, “resistance movement.” The second was the murder of George Floyd in May of 2020, which drastically accelerated the ubiquity of the social justice causes that we see today. In response, America pushed back against these encroachments with the second election of Donald Trump in November of 2024.
What does this mean in the context of the current discussion? It means that those who identify as blind aren’t using their blindness merely as a self-description of a characteristic. Rather, they are using it as identification in a membership within a marginalized group whose lived experiences shape their relationship to power, privilege, social status, economic status and political disadvantage in both historical and modern society. In other words, the disability community is bound together by their identity, not merely a characteristic. When viewed through this lens, identity comes closer to Briley O’Connor’s worldview rather than Julie Orozco’s.
Sidebar: It is worth mentioning that the institutional capture that seems to have infected the NFB is not unique to the organized blind. Many philanthropic and advocacy-based institutions have been overtaken by elements of a larger progressive umbrella. They include, but are not limited to, the American Civil Liberties Union, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The American Medical Association, the National Education Association, The United Way and the American Bar Association. Even the freakin’ Boy Scouts of America has fallen victim to woke influence. Wow!
It is darkly ironic that Jernigan’s conception of blindness as a characteristic would be supplanted by the identity movement, mostly because Jernigan unwittingly provided the modern leadership with the authoritarian levers of power that they could use to easily hijack his original vision. I understand why he did what he did. Jernigan was central to a lot of conflict during his long tenure as a Federation founder. He endured a civil war, battles with government rehabilitation organizations, intimidation tactics from nonprofit institutions that claimed to aid the blind, numerous legal battles and onslaughts from hostile media outlets. Regrettably, for all of his sagacity, he did not foresee the possibility that his own philosophical legacy would be controverted by those who would use his authoritarian practices to their own benefit.
As I have stated in previous blog entries, the NFB is a very top-down, autocratic organization. The resolutions they pass every year give only the illusion of democratic machinery at work. The major policies and initiatives set forth by the leadership are decided upon in closed door meetings, in board rooms and by individual presidential fiat. There are no contested elections on the national level. Resolutions are authored by loyal Federation alum and are passed in a whirlwind manner at the convention under extreme time pressure. There is no viable mechanism for constructive descent available to the rank and file NFB member who wishes to bring attention to or object to a new set of policies or principles adopted by the Federation.
This is how their modern catch phrase, “Live the life you want,” came into use. Anyone remember Whoozit? It’s how the Jernigan Institute was built. It’s how they intend to fund their new historical museum. And it is how the leadership can now subvert a core doctrinal tenant once taken for granted by long time members. An overt erosion of a core plank in the NFB platform would be far more incremental amidst open, honest and spirited debate. Under the current status quo, it happens circumspectly and covertly. It manifests itself in a word here, a phrase there, a speech here or there, while the general membership just goes along with a leadership whom they believe to be operating in their best interests.
The rest of the explanation is obvious. The NFB wants to attract young people. In fact, they are desperate to recruit young people to their ranks. Sadly, socialist and Marxist precepts are far more popular among young people than they are amongst older generations. Like all other service-based organizations, the NFB is having a tough time in this goal since young people tend not to be as civic-minded as their predecessors. I am quite certain that some of this mission creep is tolerated by well-intentioned leaders who hope to discard philosophical concepts that they see as antiquated or anachronistic. And so they have either actively or passively ignored the question without taking the time to consider its implications.
Recruitment of the leaders of tomorrow is a worthy and understandable goal. It is impossible to perpetuate the objectives of the NFB without the young to carry it forward. However, in radically transforming the philosophy of an organization to accommodate the young, the leadership risks disenfranchising long-time members who have invested years in the movement. They also risk alienating politicians who would rightly view them as partisan.
I am sure that, for other members in leadership, this mission drift is calculated and the risks are of little consequence. For them, the way forward is simple. “Times change and, for the sake of social justice for all, we must change with them.” Those who come willingly are enlightened souls. Those who resist inevitable change are remnants of the dark age and they must be purged from the ranks. The new leaders are woke ideologues who act as if blindness as an identity is an obvious truth. Only bigots, close-minded throwbacks or fear-mongers could possibly object to such an obvious verity. Jernigan, at least, showed his work. He laid out his case and drew his conclusions in his speech and everyone was free to take it or leave it. The modern methodology of progressive seems to be, “because I said so,” or, “get a clue, stupid.”
As for the identity question, where do I fall on it? Honestly, I think it’s a matter of personal preference. If a person wants to choose blindness as an identity, thereby giving society more power over them, that is their choice. I choose to subscribe to Jernigan’s notion that blindness is a characteristic. Certainly it could be considered a dominant characteristic, but it is no more or less limiting or definitive than the fact that I am overweight, or 51 years old. Yes, I realize that Jernigan’s ideology is aspirational, but you can say that of most ideologies. There will always be a gap between a set of standards and the imperfect human quest to achieve them. Maybe the blind will never overcome societal barriers to attain true equality. But, to paraphrase Data from Star Trek, perhaps the reward lies within the struggle itself. I would rather tread the path of individualism, rather than the oppressive collectivism offered by the so-called progressive vision.
I certainly don’t believe that the NFB should alter its core philosophical charter without an open and robust debate process, which they are clearly unwilling to do. History demonstrates that identity politics leads to grievance politics. Grievance politics inevitably results in splintering and tribalism, rather than a cohesive union over a common set of goals and principles.
I am absolutely steadfast in my conclusion that the philosophical drift of the NFB proves that my choice to step away several years ago was well-founded. I will never give them a dime of my money. I will not give them any more or less energy than my job requires. I hold deep affection for many personal members whom I consider to be my friends, but the organization is no longer my default setting in any matter of current policy or principle. I absolutely think that the debate of characteristic versus identity is worth having, but unfortunately, the NFB is not equipped or inclined to hold such a transparent, good faith debate within its current paradigm. The only meaningful protest that I can lodge is the protest of nonparticipation. I will vote with my feet, my wallet and my heart. It makes me sad to write this, but such is life.
On a separate but related note, Stacy Cervenka celebrated her one-year anniversary as director of the Iowa Department for the Blind this past Tuesday, July 7. I predicted that she would flame out within her first year. So, I was wrong. I’m not too big a man to admit when I’m wrong. So either, Stacy is a time bomb with a much longer clock than I thought, or the governor hasn’t found her secret blackmail box yet. Or maybe…just maybe…Cervenka might just be an effective agency leader. Who the hell knows? I do find it rich that the NFB protested at the IDB last August over her decision to make the sleepshades optional. I guess their efforts came to not.
Did you like how I buried my correction at the bottom of this massive article? I did what any good journalist would do. I put the glaring prediction up front and the retraction way down at the bottom. Some would say that I’m a blogger, not a journalist. Tough cookies. I identify as a journalist. That is my truth. How ya like dem lemons?
Meanwhile, the Nebraska Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired is being audited. Thoughts and prayers for my friends who work over there.
“Throughout the world, but especially in this country, we are today in the midst of a vast transition with respect to our attitudes about blindness and the whole concept of what handicaps are. We are reassessing and reshaping our ideas. In this process, the professionals in the field cannot play a lone hand. It is a cardinal principle in our free society that the citizen public will hold the balance of decision. In my opinion, it is fortunate that this is so. For professionals can become limited in their thinking and committed to outworn programs and ideas. The general public must be the balance staff; the ultimate weigher of values and setter of standards. In order that the public may perform this function with reason and wisdom, it is the duty of each of us to see that the new ideas receive the broadest possible dissemination. But even more important, we must examine ourselves, to see that our own minds are free from prejudice and misconception.”
Kenneth Jernigan – 1963