Should Those on the Autism Spectrum Receive Special Treatment in Education or Employment?

[Mr Allen]

But what happens if you don't disclose and you get the job anyway, only to find yourself in a situation that you can't recover from. You'll either be forced to quit of get fired.

I still say that if they fire you for being Aspie, legally you could sue the crap out of them for blatant discrimination, on either side of the big Pond, and any Judge worth their Pension would take your case.

 

[Judge]

Modern welfare state. Hmmm.

Couldn't let that one go.

I'm not really sure what your comment implies here. Sarcasm?

Bear in mind this is an objective, but politically neutral term used to describe a democratic society which in general supports the idea in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the social and economic well-being of its citizens. The term itself is not particularly indicative of ideologies which may disparage the very core concept of social welfare systems. Those reflect forms of political conservatism- another issue entirely.

Of course what remains constant- and problematic in this equation is democracy itself. The rule of a social majority, which tends to ignore the needs of the Neurodiverse as they constitute such a minor percentage of the population. That much is true relative to much of any modern social welfare system that I see. And sadly IMO not likely to change anytime soon.

It isn't the concept of a modern welfare state that is at fault under such circumstances. It's democracy, where a social/political majority presumes that what's good for them is good for us. Especially if they refer to the ratio of 68 to 1 per the CDC. Where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of us few.

 

[Judge]

I still say that if they fire you for being Aspie, legally you could sue the crap out of them for blatant discrimination, on either side of the big Pond, and any Judge worth their Pension would take your case.

Rich, most employers/proprietors are nominally versed on employment discrimination laws. They won't likely fire one for being much of anything. Far more likely they'll collude with their own legal counsel to terminate employees for cause- or any other reason which doesn't imply discrimination. In essence they just "dance" around it.

Being an insurance underwriter for nearly two decades taught me this. Where discrimination and unlawful termination are in general not easy civil wrongs to right through litigation. It's a lot tougher to prove than you think.

In our country a judge has very limited powers in a civil suit, though they can and do sometimes reduce the amount of damages after the fact. Most of the equation rests with six to twelve jurors who only need constitute a simple majority to award or deny a plaintiff with restitution and damages. Where the attorney who puts on the most "convincing" argument wins, as opposed to a criminal court and a preponderance of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.

Personally I would not want to pursue much of any case of employer discrimination when it comes to Neurodiversity. The sad truth is that most jurors would probably not even understand what it means or implies. Then again, if you feel you've been discriminated against over vision or hearing concerns, a jury is far more likely to understand.

It's why if I were in your shoes, I would likely acknowledge issues over vision and hearing, but omit any mention of having Aspergers Syndrome. Prospective employers are likely to have contingent policies for employees with obvious and understandable disabilities like sight and hearing concerns. However for something they cannot see, sense or even understand, from their perspective it's probably more expedient to simply deny you employment altogether. Of course if you push the matter, no doubt the employer will likely claim any reason other than what's relative to one's medical issues. They aren't stupid, and most assuredly neither is their legal counsel.

In essence, IMO one cannot "leverage" a prospective employer with being Neurodiverse. If you project this in whole or in part in an interview, it's almost certain you won't get the job. Unless of course the employer is one of the rare ones who openly considers us an asset rather than a liability.

 

[OlLiE]

i find democracy a rather complicated mess,
- democracy is electing officials to make decisions based on majority consensus
- if in a democracy every decision had to be made unanimously so that it is a consensus between all groups great and small, then nothing would ever be decided, some opinions are by their nature mutually exclusive
- i fear that quite often it is not possible to make decisions that benefit everyone without disadvantaging others, if there were one size fits all solutions then there wouldn't be different political parties
- so democratic decisions are often compromises over where to draw the line between winners and losers as represented by the respective power of political parties

statistically it is more appropriate for the majority to impose its will on the minority (democracy) because there are less 'victims', but that's not fair to the minority who is being dominated, even less fair if multiple minorities are negatively impacted
but is it then fairer for a minority to impose its demands on a majority, theoretically even more people would be negatively affected, so no i don't think it would be fair either

this is where my brain gets stuck, i guess it's why they call democracy the best of the bad systems

the real stickling point for me regarding democracy, is the ability of the majority of voters to see outside their own four walls and think beyond their next beer and make an informed decision that goes beyond one's own immediate benefit

i guess the only guarantees one has is the bill of rights in the us and various human rights treaties around the world

 

[Judge]

With much of any democratic majority, they aren't ever likely to see their political or judicial will expressed as a form of tyranny. That's what makes democracy so precarious and even dangerous at times.

Where a mathematical majority justifies their perceived "moral high ground" on democracy itself.

French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville was incredibly insightful about this dynamic.

 

[toothless]

i dont think theres anything special about needing adaptions or alternative ways of working in order to have the same life chances as their NT peer,if it puts them on a level playing field with NT peers and doesnt in any way make them be superior,then why not?

 

[SunnyDay16]

I think "special treatment" is a very broad term. What "special treatment" means to one person, means something else to someone else. I believe that reasonable accommodations should be made to help people on the spectrum reach their goals and perform well, but I don't exactly want to be coddled and babied every step of the way either, so it kind of depends on the person's specific needs and whether the treatment is meeting them.

 

[Calibar]

In education there should be special consideration as that is more effective at educating people and that should be the primary concern of educators. But not in terms bumping grades artificially. Grades must be earned by everyone by the same standard methods of testing.

Work, no. Not in terms of performance. The same standards of performance must be applied to everyone. If you lower your expectations on performance you will lose your competitive edge against competitors and go bankrupt. Everyone should be expected to pull their own weight. I would not mind having people be understanding of personality differences though. E.g. Some women on another department that I need to interact with from time to time are not very hospitable and frown upon questions. Despite that they are very good at their job. I have actually come to like them more than I like others and their odd behaviour does not impact me much. I still ask them questions whenever I need to despite their behaviour, and they are coming to realize their slightly hostile behaviour is no defense against my questions