Episode Show Notes
AFB Possibilities is a podcast produced by the American Foundation for the Blind. Since 1921, AFB has lead the way toward creating a world of endless possibilities for people who are blind or have low vision, and this podcast is dedicated to spotlighting voices from the blindness and low vision community.
As we kick-off 2026, we wanted to share a special episode taken from the opening plenary of the AFB Leadership Conference held in Arlington, Virginia this past November. In this episode, we welcome leaders from across the field of blindness who weigh in on the current pressing issues facing people who are blind or have low vision today.
Please be sure to like and subscribe to this podcast from wherever you get your podcasts. We're excited to bring an engaging new season of content to you over the coming year as we ramp up our podcasting efforts. For questions or comments, or to suggest an episode, email communications@afb.org.
Learn more about the American Foundation for the Blind by visiting our website at www.afb.org and consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our work.
AFB Possibilities Podcast, Episode 5 Transcript
{NOTE: The following AI Transcript was provided by REV.COM and reviewed by humans. Some inconsistencies may exist.}
AFB Tag-line followed by opening intro music.
Welcome to AFB Possibilities, a podcast from the American Foundation for the Blind. I'm Tony Stephens. In November 2025, AFB held its annual leadership conference in Arlington, Virginia, a stone's throw across the Potomac River from our nation's capital in Washington, DC. There's been a lot coming out of Washington this past year that's been impacting the blindness community, so we wanted to bring together leaders from across the field, not only to discuss what's been taking place, but where we can go from here. The following is taken from the opening plenary at the 2025 AFB Leadership Conference. We hope you'll find it as insightful as we did.
Tony Stephens:
Well, it is my privilege to introduce Stephanie Enyart, the Chief Public Policy and Research Officer for the American Foundation for the Blind to introduce our panelists for our opening plenary, The State of the Field. So take it away, Stephanie.
Stephanie Enyart:
All right.. Thank you, Tony. I am actually going to go ahead and let this illustrative panel go ahead and introduce themselves, starting with my boss.
Eric Bridges:
Cool. Eric Bridges, President and CEO of the American Foundation for the Blind.
Mark Riccobono:
Good morning, everybody. Mark Riccobono, President, Nationational Federation of the Blind. Scott Thornhill, Executive
Scott Thornhill:
Executive Director, American Council of the Blind.
Lee Nasehi:
Lee Nasehi, President and CEO of Vision Serve Alliance. And Rebecca
Rebecca Renshaw:
Renshaw, president of AER International.
Stephanie Enyart:
All right. Thank you all for joining us this morning to kick things off. How about if we just jump right in? I know that there has been quite a bit in the news related to our field, the blindness field. And for those that may not be tracking everything, because there's always a lot of news these days. In terms of the Department of Education, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, as well as the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education in October had some really massive staffing cuts, followed by legal wrangling. And really the bottom line that we know is that at the very least, many of these federal employees with deep expertise in our field are in positions in the federal government that may not exist in the future. And so it's always a bit unclear as to what will happen next, but if we are in the space of losing this kind of federal experience and expertise, what does that mean for our field?
Anyone? Really good stuff.
Mark Riccobono:
That's
Stephanie Enyart:
Right.
Mark Riccobono:
Well, this is Mark. I guess I'll go. So the first thing I would say is the obvious, which is the loss of institutional knowledge. Even if you would like to see some things be different, that institutional knowledge is really critical for getting the things done that we need done in programs for the blind, rather than reinventing the wheel. We have systems we know what to do about them. The second thing I would say is the huge potential loss is oversight, not just with the Office of Civil Rights, but take, for example, Randolph Shepherd, where the federal intervention really is to make sure that the states are implementing the law in the appropriate way and that there are protections for blind vendors. And the other comment I would make is that when we don't have those personnel in place, we don't know who to talk to, right?
Today, we know who to go to. We know where the advocacy focus should be. Whether you agree with the folks or not, we know who to talk to. And finally, I would say that elimination of these staff should be a real concern for this crowd because the average American's not going to notice if these blindness experts go away. They're not going to notice. It's not going to impact their daily lives. So this room right here is the group of people that needs to articulate that difference because the average American is not going to notice. It's not going to impact their daily life. Awesome.
Rebecca Renshaw:
This is Rebecca. I'll just add to that. Agree with everything Mark has shared, of course. But in particular, the positions being reduced or terminated, I mean, that's really, they are the individuals that protect the rights and advance opportunities for individuals with visual impairment. And their work at the federal level shows the commitment of the federal government in terms of the importance of these individuals. And it means it takes words on paper and actually implements and shows that commitment. And so there's long-term effects, of course, with accountability, as Mark had talked about, delays in services and decisions that could be affected by this without the institutional knowledge that's there. Inconsistent interpretation of disability laws is a concern, reduction in accountability, of course. And then long-term erosion of that capacity to carry forward because of the loss of that institutional knowledge.
Stephanie Enyart:
Thank you so much. Do others have bright news about this topic? I'll just add that there was a backlog at the Office of Civil Rights before this shut down, and then the turmoil related to these positions were announced. And that means the people that are bringing cases about their own civil rights and the education system may have fewer options to be able to seek justice and have an access to free, appropriate public education, which may be the only option for them to be able to have that fully realized.
Scott Thornhill:
Stephanie and Scott, just real quick, add on their end. I think one of the things that we will find to Mark's point and Rebecca's as well, I think you'll see more pressure on the states for sure. And whether or not individual states have the capacity to handle what needs to be handled. And then the oversight element, each state is going to handle it differently, which is why federal government often has oversight. And so I think as those states attempt to fill the gap, we'll start to see a disparity in terms of how services are handled and how quickly they're done throughout various states. So a lot of pressure on the states.
Stephanie Enyart:
Absolutely. So in thinking about how states may handle things differently, there's obviously a lot of policy proposals on the table related to some of the programs that we've talked about and others in our space and where they may move to, especially if there is a closing of the Department of Education. So some of the proposals include moving some programs to the Department of Labor or the Department of Health and Human Services, and these particular federal agencies have a very different focus and a very different structure and different approaches to thinking about disability or disability issues or education issues. And so I just wanted to get your thoughts on how that might impact the blind community and potentially impact our rights.
Eric Bridges:
Well, I think some of the challenge here is that we're hearing different things, right? There's not an engagement from the current administration with our community to sit down and talk through some of this. So we're hearing labor, we're hearing HHS, and maybe it winds up being a mashup of both where this stuff goes, but that is something that historically our community has worked with the existing administration to resolve or solve issues pertaining to federal programs. And so to me, that is a concern. That's a very legitimate concern. Having some of our stuff go under HHS, which looks at stuff from a medical model, I think is, at least at the outset, somewhat concerning because our community has really existed under a different model for service delivery and just in how we live our lives to a large extent. And so that from my perspective, I've used the word concern like four times.
What's a synonym? It is something that we need to continue to talk through and out and continue outreach with the administration.
Mark Riccobono:
So this is Mark. I'll plus one, definitely we should be concerned about the medical model approach and continue to steer our work away from that. But I would also urge, our approach in the National Federation of the Blind is not to get hung up on the where, but to get hung up on the who and the what. The programs are what we want to protect and unique, specific, identifiable programs for blind people is what we need. The funding, which was not adequate before, is not adequate today. And so we need to make sure that that funding doesn't get cut because it's already not adequate. And then the third aspect being whatever the structure looks like, again, to emphasize there has to be a means for enforcement.
Blind people have to know who do we go to to get changes in the program if we don't like it and who do we go to to file grievances if the states aren't implementing it right? I think as much as blind people have concerns about the way the Department of Ed has implemented certain things, yeah, it was a good fit for us. But if we get hung up on the Department of Ed argument, everybody's talking about the future of the Department of Ed and nobody's talking about blind people. Our community needs to talk about the programs for blind people, but definitely I think to Eric's point, we got to underscore that what has worked for our community is not the medical model.
Lee Nasehi:
This is Lee Nasahy with Vision Service. I have a slight disagreement with that when it comes to older adults living with blindness and low vision, who have not spent their whole lives in this community, but have come to it very late in their lives and generally have many other needs that are addressed by the medical community and some of the other programs that were in ACL, I don't know if they're still there. Everything has changed, but I think there could be some good from this for the aging community, that part of our folks, but it's so up in the air and totally agree with the point that we need people who understand blindness to be involved in this.
Rebecca Renshaw:
This is Rebecca. I'll just add a little bit more. I think that wherever the programs are housed, ultimately the disability community's rights and voices and opportunities, we need to make sure that's protected and that's central and that individuals with disabilities are citizens with rights, not just a client that needs services.
Mark Riccobono:
Absolutely.
Stephanie Enyart:
Absolutely. All right. Well, somewhat connected to the discussion we've had. We're probably looking at a space where the role of the federal government may be playing a bit of a different or a more limited or a smaller role in our space. And so as we start thinking about or seeing that there are funding cuts or programmatic cuts or that the footprint shrinks, what is it that we can do collaboratively to fill these gaps or the flip of this question, which is, what can we not do without?
Lee Nasehi:
This is Lee again. I love the theme of this conference, Leading Together. I feel like today more than ever, we are leading together, all of us in this room and beyond, and that's a very good thing. As we look to the future, I think we look at ourselves as we tend to say we never have enough resources, and we don't. We are not funded appropriately, but I believe we have way more resources than many of us think. And working together as a whole, all of our resources combined, thinking about it a little bit differently, not what does my organization need and what can I do, but what can we do together if we all bring our resources, networking leadership? And so that part of this phase that we're in, I'm very excited about, VisionServe is excited about.
Scott Thornhill:
And this is Scott. I agree with Lee. And Lee, I'm happy to hear you do so positive. This is great.
Lee Nasehi:
I'm really trying,
Scott Thornhill:
Guys. She's trying really hard. He's trying, so I love it. Anyway, but I totally agree. I've been thinking about it, saying that my father used to tell me years ago, the government giveth the government taketh away. So I think the more that we can collaborate, now it's easier said than done, frankly, but the more that we can collaborate and fill the gaps and potentially create even better things, as Eric was mentioning earlier in his opening remarks, I think there's lots of opportunity here for innovation and for some new ways of doing things. Now that doesn't happen overnight, so there's a period of time that's certainly there that we need to be aware of and working through. But I think there's lots of opportunity for us to find more innovative ways of maybe solving some of the things that we have been questioning for years.
Mark Riccobono:
So this is Mark. I agree with the idea that there are opportunities and innovations, but the perspective of the members of the National Federation of the Blind is we haven't given up yet. To quote Timothy Snyder, we shouldn't obey in advance and we shouldn't consent to being oppressed. The future is not determined yet, and there is a key time that we are in to advocate for these programs. No determination has been made yet about where these programs are going, what they're going to look like, what the future's going to be. So now is the time to advocate for those programs. If we decide that the future is predetermined, it will be predetermined. So just as an example, we had members fly into DC to meet with all of the Republican members of the Senate on the help committee last week. We have to up our advocacy game to let these members of Congress who can make a difference here know what we want.
If we wait for someone else to determine it, we're going to get whatever we get.
Eric Bridges:
I think from my perspective, trying to protect the existing laws and regulations that we have, that is very important. The delivery of those services that come through those laws and regulations is something where I think that there is an opportunity to innovate. I think as Scott may have been referring earlier, I think we all know that aspects of these programs have not been managed maybe as well as they could be down through the years. There have certainly been funding challenges. I want very much for the laws that we've worked so very hard for over the last hundred years to remain, but could there be a way in doing this where we could also modernize the delivery of the programs that come through those laws and regs?
Lee Nasehi:
Amen to that.
Scott Thornhill:
And Eric, to that point, and I'm going to say it before Mark does, the NFB actually has been leading the way on the Blind Americans Return to Work Act
And working with NIB. And at ACB, we're supportive and have been working on that on the Hill as well. And I think that's just an example for those who don't know of essentially, and I may let Mark speak to it more if you'd like to, but just that opportunity to ... This has been tried for a while and in different ways, but this is a new way to approach it and I think it opened up some opportunities. So I think that those are the places where, while we do need to protect certainly the rights, I think there's opportunity to take a little bit of a different look at things.
Mark Riccobono:
I can't believe I'm going to say this because I'm defending the status quo, but what I would say is I agree with innovation. That's always been what the Federation has pushed for, but we have to be very careful about what we go and ask for in this time because tearing down what we have is very easy. Rebuilding it is very hard. And I'm all for offense, don't get me wrong. And there are lots of offensive positions right now and opportunities, but if we're not careful about how we do that, with all the uncertainty, those programs will disappear very quickly. And so what I'm urging is we have to be telling the story of why these programs are important first, because again, they can go away and the average American will not even notice. And so if we're not talking about the story of why these programs are important today, who's going to care?
We're going to care, but no one else out there's going to care. And so if we simply throw ourur into, well, we have to reform things, which by the way, I'm a reformer. I'm for it, spent most of my career that way, but I think it's not the right messaging because our message will get lost. In the general, the government doesn't work, we need something different. It's good to have some controversy here.
Stephanie Enyart:
I agree. I kind of want to go rogue and just keep asking you questions along this line, but I'll follow the course. I will ask the questions that I promised to ask. So I'm going to change things up a little bit. So in terms of workplace technology, it's rapidly changing the way that we work and the way that we work is blind people are people with low vision. And so I wanted to know if we could have a little bit of a conversation around working with technology companies, how organizations are embracing this opportunity of collaborating with innovators inside of the tech industry, and also in this kind of landscape of things rapidly developing, do we have any areas where there are concerns about our rights as well?
Scott Thornhill:
Yeah. I mean, Stephanie, Scott, I'll speak to that just briefly, is concerns about our rights. There's certainly talk around AI and it's only going to be as good as the information that's put into it or that it draws from. And so how are people who are blind or with other disabilities depicted in information that AI gathers, but might not surprise anyone. I'm very encouraged by the technology out there today, and we certainly have a lot of new things. I was somewhat tongue in cheek joking with our keynote speaker that I heard someone say a few months ago, "It's a great time to be blind." And I thought, my gosh, please don't ever ... Anyway, but certainly the tools, the technology, the innovation, the things that we hear about last week, I had the privilege of being in Los Angeles on a very quick trip, but to work with our friends at Meta, and I did my first Waymo by myself while I was in Los Angeles, although one of my staff members, Cindy, who's here will tell me I need to use my Metaglasses more, but I was wearing my Metaglasses in the Waymo.
You
Eric Bridges:
Crossed the Rubicon
Scott Thornhill:
Skin. Yeah. Yeah. Man, I was wearing my Meta glasses in the Waymo. I was so cool for a very brief moment. But no, the technology, it's incredible and I love the fact that companies are frankly recognizing our community as Mark was saved. If we don't sort of speak up and say what we need and what we want for the future, then we're about 100% chance we're not going to get it. And the more we work with these companies and the more they see the benefits of it and it's collaboration, there's a bright future there.
Eric Bridges:
I think the challenge that we have as a community is one that the general public is experiencing as well, but it can be probably more acute for us. And that is the rapidity of change within technology and how quickly AI is changing, how quickly software is continuing to develop what, 10 years ago, Microsoft introduced Windows 10 and I think it was on a annual basis they do updates, they do updates even more frequently than that, but now it's like every day probably. You put that on steroids and I present to you AI and AI has changed just every six weeks, every other week. And to Scott's point about information and accessing information, we've got a full-blown challenge ahead of us in the information that's out there about blindness and about blind people and our capabilities and what AI scrapes and takes and then disseminates to people that want to learn and about blindness, the capabilities of blind people, vision loss.
It's an exciting time to be part of this digital renaissance that we're part of, but there's a rapidity to this that I think is somewhat challenging for everybody, but for our community to keep up with advancements. And it's really imperative that we continue to have good to excellent working relationships with technology companies and in particular the leaders, some of whom are in this room this morning, one of whom is the chair of our board and my boss. But it's both. You can have both. You can be excited and have, I think, a healthy dose of reality to kind of sober things to have us be motivated to continue to want to make things better.
Scott Thornhill:
And Stephanie, since nobody else jumped in, I've already talked on this issue or this item, but just one more thing. As Eric was talking, it made me think about, we do certainly need to be on guard to an extent, however much we can, for the fact that with all of the technology and with these advances, our community is not contrary to what people may think outside of the blindness community, we're not all the same, that within our community, we have people who, technology, skillsets, those kinds of things that may not be able to take advantage of some of the new things that are being created. And then also, frankly, just to be blunt, the pricing of some of the things. And I applaud those who are doing their best to get things to a pricing point where they can be afforded by more individuals. And I think that will help in the long run so there's not even more of a gap between individuals in our community.
Well,
Mark Riccobono:
This is Mark. So to jump off on Scott's point, innovating in technology is great. Our kids aren't getting the training in the technology. How do I know? I have two blind kids in the Baltimore City public schools. They don't have equal access to the classroom technology, and so people are building it. Who's teaching it? Is there a training curriculum specifically targeted and normed on kids to teach them how to use narrator? Are there specific training tools on how to use voiceover and where are those tools coming from? So we're here thinking about education, rehabilitation, those training programs, blind kids still need braille instruction. Blind kids still need to learn the skills of blindness that blind people have used to be successful. Technology's not going to quote fix that. We need the technology companies to be real advocates for making sure that these tools are equally accessible in education.
So advocacy, I'll come back to. There is an effort right now to think about repealing the regulations that we work so hard to get into Title II, which will have an impact on educational facilities. We should be worried about that because that will be the lever for then getting enforcement for schools to start having accessible technology, but then we still need people to teach it.
Controversy. True.
Stephanie Enyart:
All right. I think I found a way to keep prodding in an area that I really want to continue with, but still stick with the questions. Go
Tony Stephens:
Off script. Go off.
Stephanie Enyart:
I want to talk about bipartisanship because this is a time where it is extremely important for our messaging. And so in terms of bipartisan messaging, can you share any organizational success that you have and being able to speak about our issues across the aisle and if you want to kind of continue on with a bit of the conversation Conversation that we started where we're talking about whether or not we are trying to describe the impacts to the programs that Margaret Cabona was explaining is very important at this moment, or if we're in a place where we are embracing the change and hopefully re-envisioning something that's a brighter future for some of these programs. I heard two different kind of thematic approaches to this, so feel free to kind of weave that in if that makes sense to you. But the real charge of this question is around the bipartisan messaging and being able to speak about the issues of our moment in a very bipartisan way and any organizational success or advice or guidance that you can share.
Mark Riccobono:
Well, I'll jump in this time. This is Mark and I appreciate the question, Stephanie, and I'd like to reframe it. It's not bipartisan messaging, it's nonpartisan messaging. The lives of blind people have nothing to do with politics. And unfortunately, the programs that matter to us are currently being characterized in some ways as partisan, but the work that the field has done has always been nonpartisan. And I like to say the National Federation of the Blind, we are partisan. We're always partisan for blind people. And so as leaders in the field, as advocates, we have to be smart about talking about our core issues based on the audience that we're talking to. And we have great themes that people love from all aspects of the political landscape. So just a good example is we've been advancing a bill called the Access Technology Affordability Act. It would create a refundable tax credit for blind people to buy their own home use technology, which is really key to, if you're not working with rehabilitation, especially to get on the road to employment.
Well, the messaging there is different depending on which party you're talking to, but everybody favors people going to work. Everybody favors self-sufficiency. Scott mentioned the Blind Person's Return to Work Act. Everybody loves this, right? Because we want people to work. We want people contributing to the tax base. So we just have to be aware of the messaging and recognize that blindness touches all aspects of society. So we have to make sure we're talking to the right audience, not just sending out a generic message. The last thing I'd say there is there are opportunities also to tag on to real issues that matter to other folks. One of the things we've heard from a lot of our members is that they have benefited from telehealth services. And the Congress, because the way that it does business, has put a sunset on telehealth benefits under Medicare. That's not a blindness issue.
It impacts all sorts of people, but blind people are certainly disproportionately impacted because we have a lack of transportation options. So here we have a mainstream issue which has support on all sides of Congress that we've been pushing on. And the beauty of it is it helps Congress know that blind people are part of the community. And so we need to look for those opportunities as well. So I would say the real key here is making sure we're talking to the audience, not simply using our messaging as we know it, but make sure we're really delivering it to the audience in the language that they can receive.
Scott Thornhill:
Stephanie, it's Scott. And just to continue the agreement with NFB and ACB on all of these issues, as Mark was saying. It's interesting because it really is nonpartisan. I think part of what hurts us and helps us potentially in various ways and has over the years is that the items that we advocate on tend not to be necessarily the hot button political items of the day. And so therefore, it doesn't necessarily get the attention, but it also gives us the opportunity, frankly, to get some things done without it becoming necessarily overly politicized. And so one of the things we have found just in some hill visits, there's interesting feedback. We're working on the website and software Applications Accessibility Act, as I joke with Claire Stanley, our director of advocacy and governmental affairs, couldn't think of a longer name. So we just went with website and software applications Accessibility Act.
Mark Riccobono:
Blame Scott
Scott Thornhill:
Labar. I do like Barwa though. But one of the messages that we got or that got directly was, well, this would be considered a big government bill. A big government and it hardly spends any ... Yeah,
Eric Bridges:
That goes in that meeting with you. We kind of chuckled on that.
Scott Thornhill:
Yeah. I was like, "Big government, this cost almost nothing. What's the big..." Well, it was about regulation, so therefore it appeared more big government than even a bill that would spend more money. And so I think understanding those nuances and then also just the fact that we're not in that space. And so to Mark's point, it's about we want more people, as the term would go, coming off the sidelines, into the workforce, contributing to the tax base, all the terms that we may use. And all of those messages and those themes do carry across. They are not partisan. And so I think the more we can do that. And I also think that some of the things that we want to work on are going to get slipped in. Frankly, if we want them to be under the radar, I think that's exactly how they're slipping under the radar because we have people on both sides of the aisle that care about the things we're talking about.
And one of the reasons why, it's not just because what they see in their communities or what they want for the economy, it's frankly, in some cases, because of their own families. And I think when you can tell your story and you can connect with someone, it's going to go a lot of times a lot further than just what the hot button political item of the day is.
Rebecca Renshaw:
Well said. This is Rebecca. I'll just jump in and say AER has the privilege of being part of the National Policy Collaborative, which includes all these individuals that I have the honor to sit beside here and many other blindness organizations. And that has been a lot of our topic, the conversation of keeping that messaging most impact is sharing our stories and the outcomes and the impact on people with visual impairments and engaging in that dialogue with policymakers to help them understand the ultimate impact. And it's really, if we stick with the message simply that when we invest in accessibility and education and rehabilitation, we're investing in America's promise to every person, regardless of disability, to have the right to learn and work. And it's not a partisan issue, it's a national one.
Stephanie Enyart:
Absolutely. I'll just throw in that anecdotally, I was speaking to somebody who has been a colleague for a while in a federal agency about whether or not we could bring our AI related research and share it there, but with a very different set of political figures in the agency, they were not interested in hearing about bias in terms of AI. And I said, "Well, I could certainly talk about the unintended consequences of leaving out groups of people and what that impact might look like. " And this person said, "Perfect. That's great. Talk about it that way. This tool is leaving people out. " And so we can try to maybe zoom out of some of the political language of our moment and just reframe the actual logistical situation that's going on. So for whatever that's worth. Well, I want to ... We've talked about things across the spectrum here that may not be that uplifting.
And so I want to kind of drive us to another space where we could really think about, as we look forward into the future, what is it that we have to be optimistic about? What can we look forward to? What excites you as you think about what is coming for the blind community and for us as individuals in it?
Let's strike a different tone. I think we've been pretty positive, Mark. And this was one of your questions. Just to remind you, one person on this stage really liked this one and I love this question.
Scott Thornhill:
I
Eric Bridges:
Blame Scott.
Scott Thornhill:
Yeah.
Mark Riccobono:
Go ahead,
Scott Thornhill:
Scott.
Yeah, go Scott. Blame me. Fine. Just blame me for the positivity. I'll take it off. Give us the answers. Look, I think we've talked about some of it up here already. Whether it is a bill like getting blind Americans and really other disabled Americans to return to work or to go to work maybe for the first time, that can't help but be a positive forward looking scenario. As we look at, for example, durable medical equipment and making it another bill that we're working on to make medical equipment accessible, that'll do nothing, but probably keep people healthier, bring down potentially healthcare costs, people get treated sooner. There's a lot of positive things that are happening there, and that's part of our messaging there. But I also believe that, look, throughout our history, and Eric spoke on this, and I think others here in various elements would agree on this.
Look, we've had individuals and groups of individuals who have stepped up at any given period of time, and yes, continue to push back and fight, and advocate, as Mark mentioned. I think at the same time, as we look at opportunities for innovation and what the future holds and the technology that we have, that the choices that we have ... I remember when I was real quick, when I was losing my vision from RP, and I remember my wife telling me as an extroverted individual myself that I could not ... She's like, "You can't continue to live like this, " which meant staying at home, didn't want to leave. I was missing handshakes and tripping over curbs and doing all those things. And she said, "You can't live like this. " And I had a choice to make. I could either let the world pass me by as I kind of laid in a fetal position and just mourned the loss of my vision, or I could sort of had that intestinal fortitude that it took and said, "Okay, this is a new life.
I got to live a different way. I got to do things a new way. And so how am I going to do it? I don't know exactly how I'm going to do it, but if I don't put one foot in front of the other and move forward, I'm never going to do it. " And so let me figure out what that looks like. And I think as a group, we have enough smart people in this room. I'll exclude myself. There's a lot of smart people in this room, and we can figure out how to move forward and do positive things for our community and for the individuals that are in it. So that's my take on where we go from here.
Eric Bridges:
I agree. And I am excited about technology and what it can do. Just an example, and it might be hokey to some of you, but over the last couple years, the advent of AI as it pertains to being able to accurately describe an image is something that has meant a lot to me and my wife, because we've got kids, we take pictures. Blind people do take pictures and being able to do that, to recognize what the kids are doing, to get the descriptions of the photos, having that ability to do it on your own, to have a photo album that you can understand, that's a small example. And also not posting a photo on Facebook of your son wearing two different colored socks. Thank you, AI.
But there are a multitude of examples from a productivity standpoint. There's a lot more that still needs to be done for sure to meet the needs of blind people, not just today, but tomorrow, but there's a lot of exciting stuff. The Meta Glasses, as Scott said, being able to successfully get in a rideshare vehicle without being denied by the driver, because there is no driver. Happened to me last night, by the way, in front of my employees, in front of my team, I was actively denied by an Uber driver. So these sorts of things, they bring hope. They bring, I think, also a level of excitement because not all of this is just for blind people, but we can take advantage of it and we can figure out how to utilize technology in our own way, our own customizable way to help with our own productivity, whether it's in the home, at the workplace, or in education.
Mark Riccobono:
So this is Mark. I just want to add that and jump off of what Scott said. Although I was sitting over here thinking it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. But in three days, it'll be the 85th anniversary of the National Federation of the Blind, and we are rereleasing our 50th anniversary book as a podcast. So I call that to your attention, because I think studying history is important. And from the perspective that I come from, when you look at where blind people were 85 years ago, we have a lot to be optimistic about and a lot to look forward to. And that is because we know that the story of blind people in this country represents the best of the ideals that this country was founded on and continues to hold. Self-determination, self-sufficiency, creating opportunities, eliminating barriers. Those are the stories of blind people.
And from the perspective of the National Federation of the Blind, we do not consent to being oppressed. We're going to continue to press the canned story of blindness, to change the image of blindness in society, because that's what really has made the difference. And we know that that story sells because when people come to know it, it creates joy in their lives. So that's my optimism, is that the story of blind people is the story of joy, excitement, imagination, determination. And I have never given up on that. We've never given up on that. I know this room won't, so there's a lot to be optimistic about.
Eric Bridges:
We're the original life hackers. Oops. That's
Lee Nasehi:
Right. This is Lee, and I'm excited about two things. The collaboration we see amongst and between organizations and the innovation of providers faced with many challenges, how they have gone beyond and made solutions for that. So there are organizations providing services that they did not traditionally do because it had to be done. It's not being offered in their communities and they've taken the initiative to step out and learn what they need to do and serve people differently. See lots of organizations doing that. It's also regarding the personnel. We have a huge personnel shortage, and so embracing other professionals in our field with proper training is happening more now than it ever has. And I hope we'll continue on that path. That's something to be excited about.
Rebecca Renshaw:
Nice.
Stephanie Enyart:
Any more optimism? I'll take it. We can sit here for the whole morning if you want, because I'm ready to be uplifted.
Rebecca Renshaw:
I mean, this is Rebecca. I agree with, of course, my fellow panelists here. I think this is, even in this time of uncertainty, this is an opportunity to define that next era, and we can do it together now more than ever. It's important that we do it together.
Lee Nasehi:
Stephanie, the yellow light's on. But I want optimism.
Stephanie Enyart:
They said I got to keep this going.
Mark Riccobono:
I do just want to throw in, because I think Rebecca's being a little modest. I think there's a lot of optimism, at least from the perspective of blind people, that Rebecca has been leading her organization more into the advocacy realm. We need the professionals to join the advocates.
Stephanie Enyart:
I agree. Everyone needs to make the personal political. So I also want to just say thank you. Thank you all for joining me in a conversation here that changed daily when we're looking at the fodder that I was going to talk to you about every single day, offered a new news update. So thank you so much for leading in your respective spaces in the field. And thank you so much for the optimism that you've shared this morning. Hi, thank you. Join me everyone.
Tony Stephens:
You've been listening to AFB Possibilities, a podcast from the American Foundation for the Blind. To learn more about AFB or help support our work creating a world of endless possibilities for people who are blind or have low vision, visit us at www.afb.org. Be sure to like and subscribe to this podcast wherever you get your podcasts from, and leave us a comment. It really helps us out. AFB is produced and edited by Tony Stephens at the Pickle Factory in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional digital media support from Kelly Gasque
and Breonna Kerr. For questions or comments, email communications@afb.org.
<BR>
