Recently, autism specialist Julie Lounds Taylor studied the question of whether or not programs to help adults with autism find and keep jobs are indeed effective.
The full study is available online for anyone who cares to read it.
Essentially what she and her coauthors did was to comb the literature looking for published studies demonstrating outcomes of autistic adults who were in various job placement and/or training programs. It would appear that a number of these were on the more severe end and not as high functioning as someone like myself and others who might have trouble in the workplace, as they were in supported employment programs.
They found five studies that showed promising results for those on the spectrum enrolled in these programs. One problem was that all but one were in countries outside the U.S.A. So their relevance for those of us in America may be questionable.
The studies were deemed to be of poor quality for a variety of reasons: No long term follow-up. Lack of random assignment of autistics who took part in the program versus the controls, and in one study involving supported employment no control group.
There was no proof that these programs were not effective, only that the empirical evidence in the studies evaluating them was weak.
As I've written in previous posts, I am skeptical that there are any quick fix solutions to helping those on the spectrum find and keep jobs. I'm at the milder end and after many years of struggle, I finally had to capitulate and retire at the relatively young age of 51.
I've previously written about my bad experiences with voc rehab. I've also written about ASTEP, run by neurodiversity rogue Michael John Carley who has stated in his book, Aspergers from the inside out, that no autistics want to be cured and did not even bother to consult me.
Last but not least, I've written about autism speaks' hypocrisy in claiming to have an interest in helping us, yet never having employed a person on the spectrum in their organization.
I applaud Dr. Lounds Taylor for taking an interest in this topic and publishing this study. It seems no one else really cares about helping us.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
"Sullivan's" odd views on neurodiversity, respect, human rights and dignity
I see that the well-known pro-neurodiversity blogger, Matt Carey (AKA "Sullivan"), is at it again trotting out an abstract of a paper which I doubt he's even bothered to read to bolster the strawman argument he repeatedly makes that those of us who oppose neurodiversity are opposed to dignity and human rights for persons with autism.
The paper deals with the views of those with intellectual and developmental disabilities who want dignity and respect in research that involves them. Though the abstract of the article does not mention either autism nor neurodiversity, Carey vis-a-vis some sort of possibly convoluted logic which I'm not nearly sophisticated enough to understand ties this publication into one of his pet topics, i.e. neurodiversity equals respect and dignity and human rights.
We can see from wikipedia's definition that they give a different meaning from Carey: Neurodiversity is a "controversial concept [that] ... regards atypical neurological development as a normal human difference"
Carey states:
Call it “human rights and dignity” and it isn’t a controversial concept. It may not be always followed but it isn’t controversial. Call it “neurodiversity” and somehow it’s a big deal.
Mr. Carey, I realize a prestigious blogger and public member of the IACC probably won't take the time to read my piddling gadfly blog. However, I wonder how you can equate claiming that the atypical neurologic development is not an impairment, but rather a human normal difference to dignity and respect?
Also, the on-line behavior of those involved in neurodiversity seems to involve denying anyone with an autism spectrum disorder or possibly other neurologic or psychiatric impairment a cure if one is available and they so desire one. The motto of Kevin Leitch who created the autism hub and in fact is Mr. Carey's predecessor as the main author of the blog that Carey now writes for was "We don't need no stinkin' cure". Well, in response, I say, "We don't need no stinkin' neurodiversity." That is not about human or civil rights. I want a cure for autism. I believe that autism is a disability, defect and disease and not a normal human difference or variation. Does this mean I am opposed to civil rights for others or dignity or respect as both Michelle Dawson and Mr. Carey have stated? Not at all. I am all for human rights, dignity and respect. Can the same thing be said of neurodiversity proponents? Continue reading this post for the answer to that.
He also states that people are mistaken that neurodiversity is a concept only involving high functioning autism and they are mistaken about his son's functioning level. I don't know how high-functioning Carey's son is, yet I've never heard any pro-neurodiversity arguments from someone on the spectrum who was not high functioning. In fact, it would appear the majority of them are far higher functioning than anyone else who has autism. They can marry, have children, have good jobs, go to graduate school and pursue ph.d's, etc. I would be curious if Mr. Carey's son/daughter holds the same point of view as he does or if Carey has even inquired. If his offspring is too low functioning to understand or answer, then I don't understand how Carey can speak for him.
How about dignity and respect? What of the ND who emailed brain researcher Matthew Belmonte calling him a nazi? What about those who have called me Goebels, Mitchell-shite, and have written libelous posts about me and spent time harassing me. What of one ND who stated that parents of children don't give a fuck about their autistic kids and wish they would drop dead. What of your fellow IACC public member Noah Britton who has equated parents who wish a cure for their autistic children and support autism speaks with members of the Ku Klux Klan? Do proponents of the neurodiversity movement treat people with dignity and respect? No, I don't think so.
No, Mr. Carey, human rights and dignity are not controversial topics. I don't see how you or anyone else can deny whether or not autism is a disability and a disease or whether or not it's a normal human variation isn't a controversial opinion. I don't comprehend how stating that persons who can't speak, can't dress themselves, let alone work and who engage in self-injurious behavior should not only be denied a cure if one were available, but also be labeled racists if their parents desire a cure for them is not controversial. Again, Mr. Carey, your convoluted logic is way too sophisticated for me to follow.
The fact this individual is a member of a publicly funded body that gives recommendations to the federal govermnent regarding autism policy concerns me deeply.
The paper deals with the views of those with intellectual and developmental disabilities who want dignity and respect in research that involves them. Though the abstract of the article does not mention either autism nor neurodiversity, Carey vis-a-vis some sort of possibly convoluted logic which I'm not nearly sophisticated enough to understand ties this publication into one of his pet topics, i.e. neurodiversity equals respect and dignity and human rights.
We can see from wikipedia's definition that they give a different meaning from Carey: Neurodiversity is a "controversial concept [that] ... regards atypical neurological development as a normal human difference"
Carey states:
Call it “human rights and dignity” and it isn’t a controversial concept. It may not be always followed but it isn’t controversial. Call it “neurodiversity” and somehow it’s a big deal.
Mr. Carey, I realize a prestigious blogger and public member of the IACC probably won't take the time to read my piddling gadfly blog. However, I wonder how you can equate claiming that the atypical neurologic development is not an impairment, but rather a human normal difference to dignity and respect?
Also, the on-line behavior of those involved in neurodiversity seems to involve denying anyone with an autism spectrum disorder or possibly other neurologic or psychiatric impairment a cure if one is available and they so desire one. The motto of Kevin Leitch who created the autism hub and in fact is Mr. Carey's predecessor as the main author of the blog that Carey now writes for was "We don't need no stinkin' cure". Well, in response, I say, "We don't need no stinkin' neurodiversity." That is not about human or civil rights. I want a cure for autism. I believe that autism is a disability, defect and disease and not a normal human difference or variation. Does this mean I am opposed to civil rights for others or dignity or respect as both Michelle Dawson and Mr. Carey have stated? Not at all. I am all for human rights, dignity and respect. Can the same thing be said of neurodiversity proponents? Continue reading this post for the answer to that.
He also states that people are mistaken that neurodiversity is a concept only involving high functioning autism and they are mistaken about his son's functioning level. I don't know how high-functioning Carey's son is, yet I've never heard any pro-neurodiversity arguments from someone on the spectrum who was not high functioning. In fact, it would appear the majority of them are far higher functioning than anyone else who has autism. They can marry, have children, have good jobs, go to graduate school and pursue ph.d's, etc. I would be curious if Mr. Carey's son/daughter holds the same point of view as he does or if Carey has even inquired. If his offspring is too low functioning to understand or answer, then I don't understand how Carey can speak for him.
How about dignity and respect? What of the ND who emailed brain researcher Matthew Belmonte calling him a nazi? What about those who have called me Goebels, Mitchell-shite, and have written libelous posts about me and spent time harassing me. What of one ND who stated that parents of children don't give a fuck about their autistic kids and wish they would drop dead. What of your fellow IACC public member Noah Britton who has equated parents who wish a cure for their autistic children and support autism speaks with members of the Ku Klux Klan? Do proponents of the neurodiversity movement treat people with dignity and respect? No, I don't think so.
No, Mr. Carey, human rights and dignity are not controversial topics. I don't see how you or anyone else can deny whether or not autism is a disability and a disease or whether or not it's a normal human variation isn't a controversial opinion. I don't comprehend how stating that persons who can't speak, can't dress themselves, let alone work and who engage in self-injurious behavior should not only be denied a cure if one were available, but also be labeled racists if their parents desire a cure for them is not controversial. Again, Mr. Carey, your convoluted logic is way too sophisticated for me to follow.
The fact this individual is a member of a publicly funded body that gives recommendations to the federal govermnent regarding autism policy concerns me deeply.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Autism Speaks' hypocrisy in workplace problems II
As regular readers of autism's gadfly may remember, a few years ago I wrote a post regarding the fact that autism speaks would boast about how important it was to give autistic people job opportunities and showing videos of person's with autism in various jobs. This was in spite of the fact that to the best of my knowledge they have never had any paid employees in their organization whatsoever. Not even a minimum wage janitor or file clerk assisted by a job coach and accommodated for. I realize they have this person, Kerry Magroo, (sp?) who blogs for them occasionally who is referred to as "a staffer". It is unclear whether this individual is a paid employee of AS or not. It seems that AS is at it again with their nonstop demagoguery. They've even recycled giving PR to the jobs for autistics which they had nothing to do with the creation of which I wrote about in hypocrisy I. They've now publicized some department of labor grants to help train disabled people for jobs that they had nothing to do with. This is for all disabilities and not just autism. So I have to wonder if autistic people don't have it worse than other disabilities due to the poor social skills which make them less employable. Legally, these are not accommodable under ADA as I've written in recent previous posts.
In yet another PSA, AS bandies about statistics about how grave the problem is. They cite that nine out of ten autistics is not employed regardless of IQ or functioning level. I myself am not currently in the top 10%. They also project that 500,000 autistic children will become adults in the next decade. AS neglects to cite any source for these figures and where they come from I have no idea.
AS also states:
A comprehensive Employment Tool Kit is in development to help adults with autism find and keep a job in the current competitive labor market, as well as help employers recognize the abilities and strengths of individuals with autism.
I'd be interested in exactly what this comprises of and who developed it and how they can possibly help autistic people find and keep jobs, particularly in a bad economy. I'm also curious as to whether or not these alleged strengths and abilities of autistic people is based on the research of Laurent Mottron to whom autism speaks awarded a nearly half million dollar grant. Dr. Mottron has written that autistic people are assigned menial tasks in jobs when they are capable of much better, but offers no evidence for this allegation. He apparently bases this on the abilities of autistic people to find embedded figures and superior memory and musical pitch abilities or their superior scores on the Raven's matrices versus the Wechsler.
Another project AS is engaged in is an employment think tank. These individuals seem to have about as much ability to think and common sense as the authors of that ironically named neurodiversity blog, The Thinking Person's guide to autism. They cite Specialisterne, the company in Denmark which exclusively employs ASD software testers. A google search has shown a variety of articles alleging that Specialisterne only stayed in business because of generous subsides from the Danish government, though I have not been able to find a definitive source. Founder, Thorkil Sonne, in one interview did deny his company received government subsidies. So it's unclear how well this model could work in a less socialist country such as the U.S. Another company in Illinois, Aspiritech, has a similar approach to Specialisterne but is apparently subsidized by grants and as far as I know has yet to turn a profit.
One of the most dubious considerations (at least to me) is that somehow neurotypical co-workers can be trained to work with autistic employees. AS is dreaming if they think that's going to happen. If they're so sure of this, then I am curious why they don't implement this strategy in their own organization.
Once again, I wish that Autism Speaks would either start employing autistic people in their organization or stop spreading propaganda and demagoguery that they don't really believe in.
In yet another PSA, AS bandies about statistics about how grave the problem is. They cite that nine out of ten autistics is not employed regardless of IQ or functioning level. I myself am not currently in the top 10%. They also project that 500,000 autistic children will become adults in the next decade. AS neglects to cite any source for these figures and where they come from I have no idea.
AS also states:
A comprehensive Employment Tool Kit is in development to help adults with autism find and keep a job in the current competitive labor market, as well as help employers recognize the abilities and strengths of individuals with autism.
I'd be interested in exactly what this comprises of and who developed it and how they can possibly help autistic people find and keep jobs, particularly in a bad economy. I'm also curious as to whether or not these alleged strengths and abilities of autistic people is based on the research of Laurent Mottron to whom autism speaks awarded a nearly half million dollar grant. Dr. Mottron has written that autistic people are assigned menial tasks in jobs when they are capable of much better, but offers no evidence for this allegation. He apparently bases this on the abilities of autistic people to find embedded figures and superior memory and musical pitch abilities or their superior scores on the Raven's matrices versus the Wechsler.
Another project AS is engaged in is an employment think tank. These individuals seem to have about as much ability to think and common sense as the authors of that ironically named neurodiversity blog, The Thinking Person's guide to autism. They cite Specialisterne, the company in Denmark which exclusively employs ASD software testers. A google search has shown a variety of articles alleging that Specialisterne only stayed in business because of generous subsides from the Danish government, though I have not been able to find a definitive source. Founder, Thorkil Sonne, in one interview did deny his company received government subsidies. So it's unclear how well this model could work in a less socialist country such as the U.S. Another company in Illinois, Aspiritech, has a similar approach to Specialisterne but is apparently subsidized by grants and as far as I know has yet to turn a profit.
One of the most dubious considerations (at least to me) is that somehow neurotypical co-workers can be trained to work with autistic employees. AS is dreaming if they think that's going to happen. If they're so sure of this, then I am curious why they don't implement this strategy in their own organization.
Once again, I wish that Autism Speaks would either start employing autistic people in their organization or stop spreading propaganda and demagoguery that they don't really believe in.
Friday, July 13, 2012
What accommodations will autistic stakeholders suggest?
I just read an interesting post on a blog called harpocrates speaks in which the author criticizes some individuals from the age of autism blog who question the legitimacy of the autistic stakeholders who are public members of the IACC. This was in response to an individual claiming that autistic people who were dependent on the government for services had no right to refuse a cure should there be one. This position causes outrage among the neurodiverse autistics who state they would refuse a cure if one is ever found. This individual was responding to a comparison of wheelchair bound people asking for access rather than a cure. Left brain right brain blogger and IACC member Matt Carey, who is apparently against curing autism but feels the taxpayers should spend billions of dollars on special education for his offspring as well as other kids,also weighed in
Harpocrates does make a couple of valid points. There is no cure available and that a number of things the age of autism crowd touts as a cure or at least treatment are likely of questionable value if not outright quackery.
My question is, exactly what accommodations will neurodiversity extremist IACC members Noah Britton and Scott Robertson suggest that is anywhere near analogous to wheelchair access?
One reader, Liv's parents, suggested spending more taxpayer money on living arrangements so low functioning autistics won't bash their parents heads in. Apparently it's okay for the disabled person to bash a staff member's head on concrete but not their parents' heads.
In private emailings with Ari Ne'eman, he's suggested vocational training,though has no real proof it would enable the asd person to work in the same manner as wheelchair access would help someone with no or impaired legs get around. He also suggested eliminating social pleasantry as a hiring criteria in the workplace. This is certainly not realistic. ASAN has written on their website that the law requires employers to accommodate persons with autism. They neglect to mention that the law only requires reasonable accommodations (whatever that means). The law specifically states that anything that would provide a financial burden to the employer such as having to pay for a job coach out of their own pocket, a proofreader to check for errors, an aide to help control behavior, etc. is something employers don't legally have to provide. Contrary to what Ne'eman (and by extension likely IACC member Scott Robertson) believe,there is at least one legal precedent that refutes their position. in one court case, Jakubowsky vs. Christ Hospital, the sixth federal circuit court of appeals ruled that accepting an autistic persons' behavior was not a reasonable accommodation and the claimant lost. He attempted to appeal to the supreme court, but they refused to hear the case. So, it would appear there is no way autism could be feasibly accommodated for in the workplace in the same way that giving access to a wheelchair user could.
As far as I know, Ari Ne'eman during his brief tenure as an IACC public member, never suggested any accommodations. His legacy was of accusing an economist who did a study showing the expense of autism of being a eugenicist.
I realize that Noah Britton and Scott Robertson have been newly appointed to the IACC so in all fairness I should give them time to see if they can suggest any legitimate accommodations for ASDers. that is not an apples versus hurricane comparison to wheelchair users. There is no evidence that suggests to me that this will be the case--that either Britton or Robertson will have anything constructive to offer. Noah Britton apparently just wants to compare people who wish to cure their autistic children to the Ku Klux Klan as I've written earlier and that people who wish to cure autism, just want to selectively eliminate autism from the population. If there are any suggestions a member of the IACC or any other neurodiversity member has for accommodations as an alternative to an nonexistent cure, I'm interested in hearing them and they are welcome to comment in the comments section.
Harpocrates does make a couple of valid points. There is no cure available and that a number of things the age of autism crowd touts as a cure or at least treatment are likely of questionable value if not outright quackery.
My question is, exactly what accommodations will neurodiversity extremist IACC members Noah Britton and Scott Robertson suggest that is anywhere near analogous to wheelchair access?
One reader, Liv's parents, suggested spending more taxpayer money on living arrangements so low functioning autistics won't bash their parents heads in. Apparently it's okay for the disabled person to bash a staff member's head on concrete but not their parents' heads.
In private emailings with Ari Ne'eman, he's suggested vocational training,though has no real proof it would enable the asd person to work in the same manner as wheelchair access would help someone with no or impaired legs get around. He also suggested eliminating social pleasantry as a hiring criteria in the workplace. This is certainly not realistic. ASAN has written on their website that the law requires employers to accommodate persons with autism. They neglect to mention that the law only requires reasonable accommodations (whatever that means). The law specifically states that anything that would provide a financial burden to the employer such as having to pay for a job coach out of their own pocket, a proofreader to check for errors, an aide to help control behavior, etc. is something employers don't legally have to provide. Contrary to what Ne'eman (and by extension likely IACC member Scott Robertson) believe,there is at least one legal precedent that refutes their position. in one court case, Jakubowsky vs. Christ Hospital, the sixth federal circuit court of appeals ruled that accepting an autistic persons' behavior was not a reasonable accommodation and the claimant lost. He attempted to appeal to the supreme court, but they refused to hear the case. So, it would appear there is no way autism could be feasibly accommodated for in the workplace in the same way that giving access to a wheelchair user could.
As far as I know, Ari Ne'eman during his brief tenure as an IACC public member, never suggested any accommodations. His legacy was of accusing an economist who did a study showing the expense of autism of being a eugenicist.
I realize that Noah Britton and Scott Robertson have been newly appointed to the IACC so in all fairness I should give them time to see if they can suggest any legitimate accommodations for ASDers. that is not an apples versus hurricane comparison to wheelchair users. There is no evidence that suggests to me that this will be the case--that either Britton or Robertson will have anything constructive to offer. Noah Britton apparently just wants to compare people who wish to cure their autistic children to the Ku Klux Klan as I've written earlier and that people who wish to cure autism, just want to selectively eliminate autism from the population. If there are any suggestions a member of the IACC or any other neurodiversity member has for accommodations as an alternative to an nonexistent cure, I'm interested in hearing them and they are welcome to comment in the comments section.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
"Thousands" of persons with Asperger's who don't want a cure have Noah Britton. Who will represent the autistic people who wish to be cured?
The newly reconstituted IACC (Interagency autism coordinating committee), the panel of members from the federal government and general public with a stake in autism, who advise the government on how to direct research and advise the government on autism policy, had a full committee meeting a couple of days ago.
Back in April, I wrote a post discussing three of the newly appointed members of this august committee and my dissatisfaction with these individuals being selected for posts advising the government on how to deal with autism spectrum disorders.
There was another individual whom I was not familiar with at the time, Noah Britton, who, in retrospect, I wish I had commented on in the above-linked post.
If you go to approximately the 27 minute mark of the above-linked video, you'll see this guy giving his introduction to the committee as a newly appointed member. He states that he became a member of the IACC to represent "The thousands of people" with Aspergers who wish not to be cured and have the right to say no. While everyone else in the room is extremely well dressed, Mr. Britton attended the meeting wearing a raunchy white t-shirt with the crude lettering My Body, My choice emblazoned on the front.
A perusal using Google shows us that Mr. Britton has compared autism speaks to the Ku Klux Klan running the NAACP and not letting any black people in. Mr. Britton apparently is not familiar with the half million dollar research grant awarded to the Mottron group of whom Michelle Dawson is part of. He is also apparently unaware of their funding of autism talk TV run by anti-curebie Alex Plank. To the best of my knowledge, Autism Speaks has never funded any endeavors that a pro-cure autistic has been involved in.
I am curious as to where Mr. Britton comes up with his "thousands of people" figure, particularly given he uses it just for Asperger's and not for autism. As far as I can tell, he's just conjured this figure out of thin air. He also wants to represent one small segment of the autism community--those with Asperger's, and not represent other ASD's that are not Asperger's. It would seem a decent committee member would want to represent the interest of all persons with autism and not just his own.
I'm also not sure where Noah gets the idea that assuming a cure for autism is ever found in his lifetime that anyone is proposing to force him (or any other adult past the age of consent) to undergo it. Perhaps he'd like the government to legislate that persons with Asperger's under the age of 18 can have a choice independent of their parents assuming such cure is found, I don't know. I am also curious as to what his stance is on curing those on the spectrum who are not Asperger's.
Well, Mr. Britton, if you ever happen to read this post here's an inflammatory analogy to match your KKK-NAACP one: I believe appointing you to a government post dealing with autism is like appointing a member of the mafia to serve on their city's police commission. If any reader thinks lowly of me for stooping to Britton's level, so be it. Tit for tat.
Though I don't expect a cure to be found in my lifetime (particularly at my relatively advanced age), I do long for one and I wish those who are interested in autism would pursue one and someday, the autism society, autism speaks and the IACC can say, we can disband, we don't need to have these organizations anymore.
To date, five persons on the spectrum have been public members of the IACC. Every single one of them has been opposed to curing autism. Only one pro-cure autistic, as far as I know, has been nominated as a public member, he was not appointed. Not a single one of us has ever been appointed. So the score remains five to zero, though the IACC states they want balanced points of views. They seem heavily skewed towards neurodiversity, though the law states the committee was created for the purpose of combating autism. I'm wondering what is the sense of that?
Though I won't bandy about statistics in the same manner as Britton, I will say there are a good number of persons on the spectrum I know of who wish they could be cured. Myself, Jake Crosby, Oliver Canby, Chris Charette, Sue Rubin, Marty Murphy, Tom Mckean, Roger Kulp, just to name a few. It's likely there are thousands of others who feel the same way, who have to struggle every day with this horrible disability. However, many of these individuals are incapable of speaking or writing blog posts or even telling the IACC how much they hate this disability and wish a cure.
If I had my way, the combating autism act would be jettisoned and consequently the IACC abolished, but it does bother me the federal government has such a cavalier attitude toward those of us who wish a cure.
Now we know who at least one of the public member IACC represents. I wonder if there will ever be anyone to represent us.
Back in April, I wrote a post discussing three of the newly appointed members of this august committee and my dissatisfaction with these individuals being selected for posts advising the government on how to deal with autism spectrum disorders.
There was another individual whom I was not familiar with at the time, Noah Britton, who, in retrospect, I wish I had commented on in the above-linked post.
If you go to approximately the 27 minute mark of the above-linked video, you'll see this guy giving his introduction to the committee as a newly appointed member. He states that he became a member of the IACC to represent "The thousands of people" with Aspergers who wish not to be cured and have the right to say no. While everyone else in the room is extremely well dressed, Mr. Britton attended the meeting wearing a raunchy white t-shirt with the crude lettering My Body, My choice emblazoned on the front.
A perusal using Google shows us that Mr. Britton has compared autism speaks to the Ku Klux Klan running the NAACP and not letting any black people in. Mr. Britton apparently is not familiar with the half million dollar research grant awarded to the Mottron group of whom Michelle Dawson is part of. He is also apparently unaware of their funding of autism talk TV run by anti-curebie Alex Plank. To the best of my knowledge, Autism Speaks has never funded any endeavors that a pro-cure autistic has been involved in.
I am curious as to where Mr. Britton comes up with his "thousands of people" figure, particularly given he uses it just for Asperger's and not for autism. As far as I can tell, he's just conjured this figure out of thin air. He also wants to represent one small segment of the autism community--those with Asperger's, and not represent other ASD's that are not Asperger's. It would seem a decent committee member would want to represent the interest of all persons with autism and not just his own.
I'm also not sure where Noah gets the idea that assuming a cure for autism is ever found in his lifetime that anyone is proposing to force him (or any other adult past the age of consent) to undergo it. Perhaps he'd like the government to legislate that persons with Asperger's under the age of 18 can have a choice independent of their parents assuming such cure is found, I don't know. I am also curious as to what his stance is on curing those on the spectrum who are not Asperger's.
Well, Mr. Britton, if you ever happen to read this post here's an inflammatory analogy to match your KKK-NAACP one: I believe appointing you to a government post dealing with autism is like appointing a member of the mafia to serve on their city's police commission. If any reader thinks lowly of me for stooping to Britton's level, so be it. Tit for tat.
Though I don't expect a cure to be found in my lifetime (particularly at my relatively advanced age), I do long for one and I wish those who are interested in autism would pursue one and someday, the autism society, autism speaks and the IACC can say, we can disband, we don't need to have these organizations anymore.
To date, five persons on the spectrum have been public members of the IACC. Every single one of them has been opposed to curing autism. Only one pro-cure autistic, as far as I know, has been nominated as a public member, he was not appointed. Not a single one of us has ever been appointed. So the score remains five to zero, though the IACC states they want balanced points of views. They seem heavily skewed towards neurodiversity, though the law states the committee was created for the purpose of combating autism. I'm wondering what is the sense of that?
Though I won't bandy about statistics in the same manner as Britton, I will say there are a good number of persons on the spectrum I know of who wish they could be cured. Myself, Jake Crosby, Oliver Canby, Chris Charette, Sue Rubin, Marty Murphy, Tom Mckean, Roger Kulp, just to name a few. It's likely there are thousands of others who feel the same way, who have to struggle every day with this horrible disability. However, many of these individuals are incapable of speaking or writing blog posts or even telling the IACC how much they hate this disability and wish a cure.
If I had my way, the combating autism act would be jettisoned and consequently the IACC abolished, but it does bother me the federal government has such a cavalier attitude toward those of us who wish a cure.
Now we know who at least one of the public member IACC represents. I wonder if there will ever be anyone to represent us.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Can accommodations in the workplace help autistics?
Nearly four years ago, I wrote a post discussing the problems of disclosure in the workplace for those of us on the spectrum. One reader responded in the comments section that in his country, Canada, employers are required to make accommodations for person's with disabilities if it does not cause undue hardship to the employer. The Americans with Disabilities Act here in the United States provides similar legislation.
Since the reason for disclosure is inevitably accommodations that could enable a person with autism or any other disability do their job, I thought I'd elaborate more on what I'd written way back and discuss whether or not accommodations would be helpful and other issues along those lines.
As regular readers of this blog know, I've been fired from multiple jobs in my life and have not worked in more than five and a half years. Some persons I know have suggested that accommodations are the answer to my problem and that under the ADA, employers are obligated to accommodate my disability. How helpful are accommodations for autistics? Is it feasible to apply the ADA to their cases? Has legal recourse among autistics been successful?
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees that enable them to do their job without economic hardship to the employer. Businesses with less than 15 employees are exempt.
I'm curious exactly what are specific examples of accommodations that were actually granted and/or were upheld in courts of law if a disabilities group litigated against an employer or reported them to the EEOC, the body that enforces the ADA. A Google search turned up a variety of examples. Adding ramps for wheelchair bound employees, allowing the blind to use braille or speech generating readers, allowing deaf people to use sign language interpreters. A disabled secretary with severe asthma or problems with legs who could not climb stairs. They would give the duty requiring her to climb stairs in a two story office building to the able bodied person and have her do another duty such as filing. Are ASD's disabilities that could be accommodated or is this an apples versus hurricanes comparison?
Some autistics may be overly sensitive to light or loud noises (I don't fall in this category). These are easily modifiable factors, the person could be moved into another office where there is less sound or the lights dimmed.
However, autistics have social problems, e.g. inability to get along with coworkers, loud voices, poor social skills. In some cases (though not all) it might even be as drastic as sexually accosting a coworker. Ari Ne'eman, an individual in his early 20s who has never worked a day in his life, has stated that eliminating social pleasantry as a criteria for hiring or allowing persons to keep their jobs should be a criteria. This is something that would cause an undue hardship to the employer and other employees. Certainly this is not something they are required to do under the ADA.
What about making excessive errors or poor hygiene (reasons I've been fired). This is something that cannot be overlooked and would cause undue economic hardships for the employer. Could reasonable accommodations be made. One soloution is to let the autistic person who makes excessive errors go more slowly or review the work. But this would cost the employer money and cause an undue hardship. Other aspects of autism such as lack of executive functioning, inability to follow directions may also impair the autistic. It is unlikely there are any reasonable accommodations for these that would not be an undue burden on the employer.
Are employers required to hire the disabled person who may have the minimal qualifications over a more qualified non-disabled applicant? The answer is legally no. If a job requires someone to type 50 words per minute and the disabled person types 50 words per minute, but they find a non-disabled person who types 75, they can certainly legally hire the nondisabled person if they desire. In the same vein, employers are not required to accommodate a person on the spectrum, who makes excessive errors, does not do the job fast enough or has social problems that could cause an undue burden on the employer or fellow employees. If the job involved them being in public view of people, could the self-stimulatory behaviors be bad for business if it freaked the shoppers out if a grocery bagger for example were to engage in this behavior. This would likely persuade at least some shoppers to go to another supermarket. Would they be required to accommodate this person? I'm not sure of the answer to that. One example I came across is if someone had a disfigured face that could give fellow employees a customer a bad reaction the law does not allow them to discriminate on that basis. However, would the ASD employee be able to take any recourse with the EEOC or another agency if they were fired for that reason? I'll try to answer that in the paragraph below.
How feasible is enforcement? How could the autistic person prove they were discriminated against? What would stop employers from lying or claiming the person they did not like caused them undue economic hardship even if they hadn't. Employers would break the law and even in a court case, it would be difficult to prove that they had done so. In the above noted example, the employer could come up with some excuse if it were illegal for them not to accommodate someone's public self-stimulation. They would just falsify a productivity study (something that happened to me at one job I was fired from) or find some other excuse to get rid of them. I realize there may be exceptions to this, but they are likely few and far between.
Have autistics who have been refused accommodations they allege are reasonable been successful in court. In one instance I was able to locate, the answer is no. This case is interesting in that the individual involved was a physician diagnosed with Asperger's. This person was denied accommodations he asked the hospital to give him when he was unable to interact with patients properly or relay instructions or interact on the phone with other medical personnel. In spite of obtaining a diagnosis of Asperger's, the doctor was discharged from his hospital residency. He contended that he could do his job if the staff were aware of his disability and treated him with understanding. The hospital instead offered him a pathology residency, a specialty where he'd have no patient interaction. Though this would have been a viable option for him, he declined. The individual lost at all levels of appeal, including the federal court of appeals (the sixth circuit court) which is just one rung below the supreme court. The supreme court declined to hear his case.
In another instance an individual with Asperger's was denied a laboratory tech job after disclosing his diagnosis to his about-to-be employer. With the help of an EEOC attorney, he secured a settlement of $60,000. I wonder what was accomplished by this. How far is $60,000 going to take him as far as supporting him over his lifetime. Will the fact he has a disability and sued a perspective employer motivate others to hire him? Will he be able to perform his job with another company? Will anyone else hire him, particularly in a troubled economy? Though, ASAN and others who believe accommodations are an answer will claim this a victory, these are interesting points to ponder. These were also extremely high functioning individuals with Asperger's and not autism per se. How would others unable to graduate from medical school or become lab techs fare?
I'm still trying to locate any instance where an accommodation was successfully used for an autistic person or litigation resulted in them securing employment. I'll possibly be updating this post if I find something new.
Are accommodations a viable solution for the employment problems of persons on the spectrum? I believe the answer is no.
Since the reason for disclosure is inevitably accommodations that could enable a person with autism or any other disability do their job, I thought I'd elaborate more on what I'd written way back and discuss whether or not accommodations would be helpful and other issues along those lines.
As regular readers of this blog know, I've been fired from multiple jobs in my life and have not worked in more than five and a half years. Some persons I know have suggested that accommodations are the answer to my problem and that under the ADA, employers are obligated to accommodate my disability. How helpful are accommodations for autistics? Is it feasible to apply the ADA to their cases? Has legal recourse among autistics been successful?
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees that enable them to do their job without economic hardship to the employer. Businesses with less than 15 employees are exempt.
I'm curious exactly what are specific examples of accommodations that were actually granted and/or were upheld in courts of law if a disabilities group litigated against an employer or reported them to the EEOC, the body that enforces the ADA. A Google search turned up a variety of examples. Adding ramps for wheelchair bound employees, allowing the blind to use braille or speech generating readers, allowing deaf people to use sign language interpreters. A disabled secretary with severe asthma or problems with legs who could not climb stairs. They would give the duty requiring her to climb stairs in a two story office building to the able bodied person and have her do another duty such as filing. Are ASD's disabilities that could be accommodated or is this an apples versus hurricanes comparison?
Some autistics may be overly sensitive to light or loud noises (I don't fall in this category). These are easily modifiable factors, the person could be moved into another office where there is less sound or the lights dimmed.
However, autistics have social problems, e.g. inability to get along with coworkers, loud voices, poor social skills. In some cases (though not all) it might even be as drastic as sexually accosting a coworker. Ari Ne'eman, an individual in his early 20s who has never worked a day in his life, has stated that eliminating social pleasantry as a criteria for hiring or allowing persons to keep their jobs should be a criteria. This is something that would cause an undue hardship to the employer and other employees. Certainly this is not something they are required to do under the ADA.
What about making excessive errors or poor hygiene (reasons I've been fired). This is something that cannot be overlooked and would cause undue economic hardships for the employer. Could reasonable accommodations be made. One soloution is to let the autistic person who makes excessive errors go more slowly or review the work. But this would cost the employer money and cause an undue hardship. Other aspects of autism such as lack of executive functioning, inability to follow directions may also impair the autistic. It is unlikely there are any reasonable accommodations for these that would not be an undue burden on the employer.
Are employers required to hire the disabled person who may have the minimal qualifications over a more qualified non-disabled applicant? The answer is legally no. If a job requires someone to type 50 words per minute and the disabled person types 50 words per minute, but they find a non-disabled person who types 75, they can certainly legally hire the nondisabled person if they desire. In the same vein, employers are not required to accommodate a person on the spectrum, who makes excessive errors, does not do the job fast enough or has social problems that could cause an undue burden on the employer or fellow employees. If the job involved them being in public view of people, could the self-stimulatory behaviors be bad for business if it freaked the shoppers out if a grocery bagger for example were to engage in this behavior. This would likely persuade at least some shoppers to go to another supermarket. Would they be required to accommodate this person? I'm not sure of the answer to that. One example I came across is if someone had a disfigured face that could give fellow employees a customer a bad reaction the law does not allow them to discriminate on that basis. However, would the ASD employee be able to take any recourse with the EEOC or another agency if they were fired for that reason? I'll try to answer that in the paragraph below.
How feasible is enforcement? How could the autistic person prove they were discriminated against? What would stop employers from lying or claiming the person they did not like caused them undue economic hardship even if they hadn't. Employers would break the law and even in a court case, it would be difficult to prove that they had done so. In the above noted example, the employer could come up with some excuse if it were illegal for them not to accommodate someone's public self-stimulation. They would just falsify a productivity study (something that happened to me at one job I was fired from) or find some other excuse to get rid of them. I realize there may be exceptions to this, but they are likely few and far between.
Have autistics who have been refused accommodations they allege are reasonable been successful in court. In one instance I was able to locate, the answer is no. This case is interesting in that the individual involved was a physician diagnosed with Asperger's. This person was denied accommodations he asked the hospital to give him when he was unable to interact with patients properly or relay instructions or interact on the phone with other medical personnel. In spite of obtaining a diagnosis of Asperger's, the doctor was discharged from his hospital residency. He contended that he could do his job if the staff were aware of his disability and treated him with understanding. The hospital instead offered him a pathology residency, a specialty where he'd have no patient interaction. Though this would have been a viable option for him, he declined. The individual lost at all levels of appeal, including the federal court of appeals (the sixth circuit court) which is just one rung below the supreme court. The supreme court declined to hear his case.
In another instance an individual with Asperger's was denied a laboratory tech job after disclosing his diagnosis to his about-to-be employer. With the help of an EEOC attorney, he secured a settlement of $60,000. I wonder what was accomplished by this. How far is $60,000 going to take him as far as supporting him over his lifetime. Will the fact he has a disability and sued a perspective employer motivate others to hire him? Will he be able to perform his job with another company? Will anyone else hire him, particularly in a troubled economy? Though, ASAN and others who believe accommodations are an answer will claim this a victory, these are interesting points to ponder. These were also extremely high functioning individuals with Asperger's and not autism per se. How would others unable to graduate from medical school or become lab techs fare?
I'm still trying to locate any instance where an accommodation was successfully used for an autistic person or litigation resulted in them securing employment. I'll possibly be updating this post if I find something new.
Are accommodations a viable solution for the employment problems of persons on the spectrum? I believe the answer is no.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Mitsubishi corporation funds neurodiversity activism
I just read an interesting post on the left brain/right brain blog about the Mitsubishi corporation funding an ASAN program for autistic college students. The sole purpose of this program appears to be training people to engage in neurodiversity activism.
Now a large corporation is also advocating the idea that I (and others) should live our lives as cripples under the guise of the strawman that these people are promoting some sort of human or civil rights for autistic people.
It's distressing to me that Mitsubishi could have such a cavalier attitude toward autistic persons. They are not funding a program for medical research to live better lives, to be better educated, to help lift those on SSI or without it out of poverty. They are not funding group homes for autistics or any constructive program. Only the hate mongering of ASAN aficionados who want to claim all research into autism is for the purpose of prenatal abortions, who want to insult parents who want to help their kids and those of us with autism who wish a cure could be found.
The canary party, a group promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism,has written some talking points protesting this.They allege that self-diagnosis is okay for eligibility in this program. I must admit, I don't have any documentation for this, nor does the canary party memorandum provide any links documenting this However, if true, I don't see how this is helping autistic people if someone not diagnosed by a medical professional or psychologist can take place in this program, which apparently has only the goal of promoting a political agenda and not really giving help to anyone.
Mitsubishi is claiming the program will help with employment activities among autistic college students, but as the canary party correctly points out, no mention of employment is spoken about in the guidelines, only training people in neurodiversity activism.
Mitsubishi also, according to the canary party, mentions helping people with disabilities. After Ari Ne'eman claimed that he never said that autism was not a disability, Autism's gadfly broke the story about Ari's Ne'eman's essay, Difference Is Not Disease, where he put the words "disabled" in quotes and stated that difference is not disability. After this essay was linked to on autism's gadfly, ASAN engaged in a watergate type coverup, first editing their essay to state difference is only disability when not accommodated for and then deleting the essay from the site altogether. Also, Gadfly has provided documentation of Ari Ne'eman stating that Asperger's syndrome (which he has) is hardly something anyone would call a disability.
The Canary party does make one statement in their post that is not 100% accurate:
“While the Canary Party fully supports the acceptance of all people with diverse neurological conditions….it cautions that neurodiversity as promoted by ASAN is an ideology that runs counter to the primary goals of every major autism organization in the country.”
They either don't know or are forgetting that autism speaks has funded the research of neurodiversity rogue Laurent Mottron. The federal government has funded Morton Gernsbacher's research. The autism society of america endorsed Ari Ne'eman's nomination for the NCD. Alex Plank, who has stated that autism equals good, was a keynote speaker at last year's autism society of america conference. Autism speaks has also funded Alex Plank's Autism Talk TV.
I have to wonder why the canary party has contacted Mitsubishi concerning their funding of an ASAN project, but has not protested projects that autism speaks and the autism society of america has either funded or endorsed that run counter to the philosophy that autism is a horrible disability and health problem that needs a cure.
If anyone who happens to read this who has not already read Matt Carey's endorsement of this program or the canary party's post about this, the addresses of the people you can contact to protest these activities are mentioned in the above-linked sites. I doubt I'll bother writing to them as this is already a done deal and it would not accomplish anything.
I just wish I knew why all these people are opposed to me and others being able to live a decent life free of disability, including autism speaks and ASA who gives money to people who are at the opposite end of their stated beliefs.
Now a large corporation is also advocating the idea that I (and others) should live our lives as cripples under the guise of the strawman that these people are promoting some sort of human or civil rights for autistic people.
It's distressing to me that Mitsubishi could have such a cavalier attitude toward autistic persons. They are not funding a program for medical research to live better lives, to be better educated, to help lift those on SSI or without it out of poverty. They are not funding group homes for autistics or any constructive program. Only the hate mongering of ASAN aficionados who want to claim all research into autism is for the purpose of prenatal abortions, who want to insult parents who want to help their kids and those of us with autism who wish a cure could be found.
The canary party, a group promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism,has written some talking points protesting this.They allege that self-diagnosis is okay for eligibility in this program. I must admit, I don't have any documentation for this, nor does the canary party memorandum provide any links documenting this However, if true, I don't see how this is helping autistic people if someone not diagnosed by a medical professional or psychologist can take place in this program, which apparently has only the goal of promoting a political agenda and not really giving help to anyone.
Mitsubishi is claiming the program will help with employment activities among autistic college students, but as the canary party correctly points out, no mention of employment is spoken about in the guidelines, only training people in neurodiversity activism.
Mitsubishi also, according to the canary party, mentions helping people with disabilities. After Ari Ne'eman claimed that he never said that autism was not a disability, Autism's gadfly broke the story about Ari's Ne'eman's essay, Difference Is Not Disease, where he put the words "disabled" in quotes and stated that difference is not disability. After this essay was linked to on autism's gadfly, ASAN engaged in a watergate type coverup, first editing their essay to state difference is only disability when not accommodated for and then deleting the essay from the site altogether. Also, Gadfly has provided documentation of Ari Ne'eman stating that Asperger's syndrome (which he has) is hardly something anyone would call a disability.
The Canary party does make one statement in their post that is not 100% accurate:
“While the Canary Party fully supports the acceptance of all people with diverse neurological conditions….it cautions that neurodiversity as promoted by ASAN is an ideology that runs counter to the primary goals of every major autism organization in the country.”
They either don't know or are forgetting that autism speaks has funded the research of neurodiversity rogue Laurent Mottron. The federal government has funded Morton Gernsbacher's research. The autism society of america endorsed Ari Ne'eman's nomination for the NCD. Alex Plank, who has stated that autism equals good, was a keynote speaker at last year's autism society of america conference. Autism speaks has also funded Alex Plank's Autism Talk TV.
I have to wonder why the canary party has contacted Mitsubishi concerning their funding of an ASAN project, but has not protested projects that autism speaks and the autism society of america has either funded or endorsed that run counter to the philosophy that autism is a horrible disability and health problem that needs a cure.
If anyone who happens to read this who has not already read Matt Carey's endorsement of this program or the canary party's post about this, the addresses of the people you can contact to protest these activities are mentioned in the above-linked sites. I doubt I'll bother writing to them as this is already a done deal and it would not accomplish anything.
I just wish I knew why all these people are opposed to me and others being able to live a decent life free of disability, including autism speaks and ASA who gives money to people who are at the opposite end of their stated beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
