Are inclusivity rules in colleges harmful to Aspies?

[The Outsider]

Here is an article a few months old that I found days ago and I feel it’s a pretty good read.

The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech - Quillette

I feel this is a really good article that explains the struggles that Aspies face in a modern day college setting, but also people with some other mental conditions. It’s a long read so I’ll sum it up and add my own insights. Basically the speech codes meant to provide a safe environment free of discrimination and bigotry is actually quite hostile to certain people. The rules can often be vague and enforced very selectively. Due to the nature of how Aspies are, it’s almost impossible for them not to say something that someone may consider offensive. They may question why some rules are so selectively enforced. What I’ve noticed especially these days is that questioning is one of the worst things you can do. It confronts people on their reasoning and bias, so when they’re in a position of authority, it’s easy just to put the questioner in trouble than to have to challenge their actions and beliefs. I also noticed bias or even how you’re feeling at the moment can be a huge factor in how rules are enforced. The article also mentions how famous autistic people would probably be kicked out of today’s colleges due to their behaviors without even intending to cause harm.

In an attempt to root out bigotry like sexism and racism, these rules actually cause ableism. People are expected to know the unwritten social rules and norms and any violation is treated harshly. Accidents and purposeful intent are treated the same way. It’s ableist because it assumes everyone already knows these standards and can behave accordingly. It’s quite ironic because while differences in things like sex and race are accounted for, differences in neurotypical are not. For all the talk of diversity and becoming welcoming to everyone, for some reason diversity of mental and emotional functioning is ignored.

In fact, I am reminded of something that happened earlier this year at Oxford University.

Avoiding eye contact 'everyday racism'

Basically the staff said that not making eye contact or speaking directly to someone is racist. Out of all the possible reasons for someone acting this way, they assume people only do this because they’re racist. That’s a huge word to call someone. They didn’t even consider the other reasons like cultural differences, plain feeling uncomfortable, or autism. In fact they got quite a bit of backlash from the autistic community over this. They apologized and said they didn’t take people with disabilities into account. I say it’s quite telling of today’s culture that such a thing even happened in the first place.

Oxford sorry for eye contact racism claim

That’s just one example of how rules meant to enforce inclusivity backfires. The problem is that violations of these rules are treated as the violator intentionally being bigoted or having some sort of hidden agenda. In that example alone, such a rule would put huge pressure on an Aspie. They’ll get treated as a racist for behavior they struggle with due to Asperger’s. That’s just likely to enforce withdrawal from people to avoid trouble.

Oh sure Aspies struggling to cope with social norms is nothing new. However I would expect better of the people who put in these strict guidelines to consider the idea that not everyone understands and views the world the same way they do. In other words, to fight bigotry, they end up creating bigotry. Quite frankly, I feel it is a PC nightmare that is doing more harm than good.

I personally would not have functioned well at all in such an environment. Outside of academia settings I already had issues with speaking my mind and having a different opinion on what is and isn’t bigoted beliefs. I would be walking on eggshells and be too worried about someone taking issue with what I say, don’t say, do, or don’t do. That would negatively impact my ability to function and get good grades. I’m so glad I gotten my degree years ago through online classes because I either would have quit or not go to college today with such rules in place.

The thing is that despite the best efforts to use empathy, people can choose to take offense to any given action or something said. Offense is taken, not given. There’s a difference between intentionally trying to provoke someone and simply stating something in a calm manner. Modern university rules don’t account for these differences. At what point do people develop thicker skins and not assume so many things are against them?

So what do you think? Did you have any experiences with this? What did you think of the article linked at the beginning of this post?

 

[dragoncat16]

I have found that people can find things that I say offensive, even when I say the exact words that someone else has said (I am pretty good at remembering exact words from conversations I have had), and nobody found it offensive when they said it. I think that people give far more allowances to people they like, but do whatever they can to find fault with people they don't like, and neurodiverse people tend to be much less popular than others.

I don't think it really has anything to do with our (people on the spectrum) ability to figure out how others will react to something we say or do, because, by default, others will find fault with what we say, whereas they wouldn't find fault with the same words coming out of someone else's mouth. All of this is from my experience in the academic world.

I have just suffered the abrupt end of my academic career, which I worked on building for over two decades, because one of my colleagues made negative comments and jokes about me in front of students because of my Aspergers, and then after that, I could do nothing right in the students' eyes. Some of them apparently came to believe that I called them stupid, because my colleague had convinced them that I had done so. Even though my colleague's behaviour was caught on video, somehow whatever it was that I did wrong was considered to be far worse, because the students complained about me and not about my colleague. The students did not report the fact that he berated me in front of them, but they criticised me because I said "um" too often in my lectures.

Because of the attitude most people have toward people on the spectrum, I think it is very dangerous to judge people by how others receive their words. Obviously, there are some things that should never be said, and even aspies know what they are. Otherwise, it is a grey area, and if someone takes offense to something someone else has said, the intentions of that person need to be taken into account. I do not believe that anyone, especially neurodiverse individuals, would be served by some kind of "one strike you're out" policy regarding "offensive speech", because:

1. people in general (e,g, students and colleagues) will tend to take offense and make more complaints against neurodiverse people, just because they like them less and are therefore not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
2. managers and supervisors will take more severe action against neurodiverse people, because they are also not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
3. nobody will consider the fact that neurodiverse individuals may have more difficulty discerning what will be considered offensive to others (I think this is of much less significance than the fact that people will judge neurodiverse people more harshly in the first place)

Thus, neurodiverse people will be triply screwed by the policy. Either the higher ups at the universities need to find a way to implement the policy fairly or they need to reconsider it, because the policy itself is discriminatory toward neurodiverse individuals right from the outset.

 

[dragoncat16]

The article was not clear on one thing and it really annoyed me as I was reading it. I would like an example or two of what a (highly educated and intelligent) neurodiverse person might say that others would find offensive, and a neurotypical person would not say. Can anyone come up with such an example?

 

[OrSomething]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think people should be tolerant of mistakes that may be caused by lack of social awareness. On one hand, autism isn't an excuse for bigotry or lack of empathy. If an autistic person makes a bigoted statement about a group of people, that's caused by bigotry, not autism. The same goes for an autistic person who refuses to change their manner of speech upon knowing it's hurting people--that's caused by lack of (affective) empathy, not autism.

And no, being offended isn't a choice, any more than being bothered by a loud sound is a choice.

 

[dragoncat16]

And no, being offended isn't a choice, any more than being bothered by a loud sound is a choice.

I would have to respectfully disagree with this. If you hear someone say something that could potentially offend you, you have the choice of considering an alternative explanation for why that person said what they said, or an alternative meaning for what they said (i.e. give them the benefit of the doubt).

This situation doesn't refer to words or phrases known by everyone to be offensive. This is when someone says something that could be offensive but could also be completely innocent. If the person is a stranger, you might react differently to the way you would react if the person were a close and trusted friend, even if the exact same words are uttered.

You also have to consider the context of the exchange. Perhaps the person is quoting someone else or giving a hypothetical situation. Maybe the person is a member of a particular protected group and is saying something or making a joke about that group. Sometimes, that sort of thing is considered ok.

There is a lot of processing within the brain that has to be done between sounds of speech entering one's ears and offense being felt, and some of it is conscious. To stay with your analogy, it takes no time or processing at all for a loud sound to produce the sensation of pain, and the only conscious effort involved in that particular process, at least for me, is to not punch in the face the .... who caused the loud sound to be made.

 

[The Outsider]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think people should be tolerant of mistakes that may be caused by lack of social awareness. On one hand, autism isn't an excuse for bigotry or lack of empathy. If an autistic person makes a bigoted statement about a group of people, that's caused by bigotry, not autism. The same goes for an autistic person who refuses to change their manner of speech upon knowing it's hurting people--that's caused by lack of (affective) empathy, not autism.

And no, being offended isn't a choice, any more than being bothered by a loud sound is a choice.

I do agree autism isn't an excuse for bigotry or lack of empathy, however what's considered bigotry can be highly subjective. The rules and speech codes are vague enough that so many things could be considered bigotry, especially toward minority groups. For example, Oxford University's comments (before they apologized) on not making eye contact toward people. They probably wouldn't call it racist to not look at white people, but probably would not to look at black people. It might not be considered bigoted to question a Christian's beliefs, but it likely would be bigoted to question a Muslim's beliefs. I noticed the rules are applied and forced differently toward majority and minority groups even to the point where it may seem unfair. The article linked on top gives a couple of examples of that. To an Aspie like me, it's a clear bias that seems to protect or punish people based on factors they can't control. In fact, the whole idea of microaggressions seems to only apply to minorities and specific taking things in a negative context by choice.

I still stand by being offended being a choice, at least from my own personal experience. Now while there is a certain reaction we can't control, how we deal with it we can control. For example, it used to be bother me a lot more when people would say things like Asperger's makes you stupid. Nowadays I've gotten much better at not having a negative reaction over it even if I still find it an annoying stereotype. It's not quite the same thing as say, loud noises, because that isn't a subjective meaning like words are. Intent matters. What people say can have so many different intentions behind them. Loud noises in themselves are not intent, but a force of nature. Granted, someone could intentional cause loud noises to purposely annoy people, but in general loud noises happens without intent like machines. I find it's much easier to control our body and mind's reaction to words than things happening. An loud noise is objective going to have a certain effect on your ears. Our reaction to specific words is how we're taught to deal with them. For example, some people here might be offended by the word Aspie, while others are not depending on how they view the word based on how they heard and seen it used. People give meaning to words.

 

[OrSomething]

Indeed, there is a choice of how we interpret the words, and there is a choice of whether we give people the benefit of the doubt. But I view offense as an emotion, pretty much synonymous with hurt feelings, and those we can't always control. For me, sometimes even if I try to not make a big deal out of something and to smile through it, there's a little feeling of wrongness at the back of my brain for a while. I'd also like to add that we can't always control how we react to things. For autistics who have meltdowns, it's very difficult, and takes a long time to get better at coping with stressful stimuli.

I do understand what you're saying about double standards and the possibility of misinterpretation. Maybe people should try not to make snap judgments, and instead get all the facts before they react, and try to educate people kindly instead of attacking them when they make mistakes. (Easier said than done, though. I know there have been times when I've reacted quickly and strongly to something, only to realize, sometimes years later, that I misinterpreted the situation and there was no need to get upset.) Furthermore, not everything needs to be a disciplinary matter. Some things may be able to be worked out just between the two involved parties.

 

[OkRad]

I have found that people can find things that I say offensive, even when I say the exact words that someone else has said (I am pretty good at remembering exact words from conversations I have had), and nobody found it offensive when they said it. I think that people give far more allowances to people they like, but do whatever they can to find fault with people they don't like, and neurodiverse people tend to be much less popular than others.

I don't think it really has anything to do with our (people on the spectrum) ability to figure out how others will react to something we say or do, because, by default, others will find fault with what we say, whereas they wouldn't find fault with the same words coming out of someone else's mouth. All of this is from my experience in the academic world.

I have just suffered the abrupt end of my academic career, which I worked on building for over two decades, because one of my colleagues made negative comments and jokes about me in front of students because of my Aspergers, and then after that, I could do nothing right in the students' eyes. Some of them apparently came to believe that I called them stupid, because my colleague had convinced them that I had done so. Even though my colleague's behaviour was caught on video, somehow whatever it was that I did wrong was considered to be far worse, because the students complained about me and not about my colleague. The students did not report the fact that he berated me in front of them, but they criticised me because I said "um" too often in my lectures.

Because of the attitude most people have toward people on the spectrum, I think it is very dangerous to judge people by how others receive their words. Obviously, there are some things that should never be said, and even aspies know what they are. Otherwise, it is a grey area, and if someone takes offense to something someone else has said, the intentions of that person need to be taken into account. I do not believe that anyone, especially neurodiverse individuals, would be served by some kind of "one strike you're out" policy regarding "offensive speech", because:

1. people in general (e,g, students and colleagues) will tend to take offense and make more complaints against neurodiverse people, just because they like them less and are therefore not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
2. managers and supervisors will take more severe action against neurodiverse people, because they are also not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
3. nobody will consider the fact that neurodiverse individuals may have more difficulty discerning what will be considered offensive to others (I think this is of much less significance than the fact that people will judge neurodiverse people more harshly in the first place)

Thus, neurodiverse people will be triply screwed by the policy. Either the higher ups at the universities need to find a way to implement the policy fairly or they need to reconsider it, because the policy itself is discriminatory toward neurodiverse individuals right from the outset.

THis made my heart just sink. What subject did you teach? I bet you were an excellent teacher. I cannot believe what they did to you. My uncle was a prof and his wife was going to leave him if he stayed in. She could not STAND the environment!! Insane snobs, the lot.

 

[dragoncat16]

I taught physics. I gave up my entire life (relationships, the chance to have kids, etc.) so I could move all over the world for my career, and now it's gone because even though I am much more academically capable than my former colleague, he is better at manipulating people. They never mentioned that particular skill as a requirement in the job description, but it, as well as being male, really gives a person a boost toward a successful academic career in a technical subject.