Required Medical Leave

This is a proposed new rule for my college (may have already gone through, my e-mail went on the fritz at about the worst time). It came, interestingly enough, after a proposal for the police to acquire rifles to deal with an active shooter failed, and during that discourse, many of the people against the proposal said that there should be preventive measures such as counseling instead, and in the listserv I warned of the potential for us to become overly vigilant for anyone who looks to be outside of the norm, to overly screen if prevention is our only means of addressing such a rare yet devastating situation (not that prevention would be 100% anyway, even if the schools excluded everyone who ever had a psych diagnosis before).

While this rule does not appear to be related (it includes physical disabilities as well), I cannot help but wonder how the culture will continue to evolve, here and elsewhere:

Issuing a required medical leave of absence.

(1) The dean of student and academic support services, or the dean's designee, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "dean") may require a student to take a medical leave of absence if a student has a physical illness or a mental, emotional or psychological condition and as a result of the condition: (a) Is engaging in, or is threatening to engage in, behavior that poses a significant danger of causing substantial harm to the health, safety or welfare of the student or others; or (b) The student's behavior has resulted in substantial harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the student, or others and the behavior continues, or there is a risk the behavior will continue, posing a significant danger of causing substantial harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the student or others; or (c) The student's behavior has resulted in significant disruption of the teaching, learning or administrative activities of other members of the campus community and the behavior continues, or there is a risk the behavior will continue, with the likely result of such behavior substantially impeding the education processes or proper activities or functions of the college and its personnel.

(2) In determining whether to require a student to take a medical leave of absence, the dean shall consult with the director of health and counseling services, or the director's designee (hereinafter collectively referred to as "director of health and counseling services") and, where possible, other persons who can provide relevant information about a student's condition.

(3) Prior to the dean requiring a student to take a medical leave of absence, the student shall be provided an opportunity to present information about his or her circumstances, where reasonably possible, to the dean. A student waives their opportunity to provide information if he or she is unwilling or unable to meet with the dean in a timely manner.

(4) The dean shall issue the required medical leave of absence in writing to the student. The written notice shall include the effective date of the leave, the reasons for requiring the leave, the conditions for reenrollment, and any restrictions imposed on the student's access to the campus or college-sponsored activities.

(5) The required medical leave of absence shall be effective twenty-one days after it is served on the student, unless the student files a timely written appeal of the dean's decision as set forth in these rules. Service of the dean's decision shall be complete upon deposit in the United States mail to the student, postage prepaid and properly addressed to the student at the last known address on file with the registrar's office, or by personal service on the student.

Note that "danger of causing substantial harm to" is delineated as separate from "behavior has resulted in substantial harm to", and is a criterion for required medical leave as well. While I think it is the best course of action for a college to put students in touch with resources in the community if they are posing a danger to their health and safety (but not to anyone else) rather than to boot them off campus, it is the "welfare" criterion that seems widest and most vulnerable to abuse.

I think the main flaws in it is that it doesn't distinguish between procedures for requiring a student to leave who is posing risk to only themselves or to others as well. For instance, someone who has difficulty keeping their room clean and so it is a fire hazard, poses a (small) danger to themselves. But in this, they would be treated with the same procedures as someone who is violent in classes and has suicidal thoughts expressed.

It is also made clear that it may be difficult to reenroll:

Returning from a required medical leave of absence.

(1) A student wishing to be considered for reenrollment to the college shall submit an application for reenrollment to the dean at least one month prior to the start of the quarter in which the student wishes to reenroll. The student shall provide appropriate documentation with any conditions for reenrollment set forth in the dean's decision. If a student files an appeal of the dean's decision, and the conditions for reenrollment are modified by the review board, the student shall provide evidence that the conditions set forth in the review board's order have been met. A student must also meet all other admission or enrollment requirements of the college for reenrollment.

(2) The dean shall consult with the director of health and counseling prior to determining if the student may reenroll.

(3) The dean shall notify the student in writing of the decision and the conditions associated with the approval or denial for reenrollment. 

(c) Washington State Code Reviser's Office

So one has to re-apply to the college, and then after that, the dean meets with the counselor and health people to see if they approve. In addition to meeting the normal requirements to admission. Unless someone is posing a danger to the community, I don't see how this can be construed as right. As an optional procedure to assist a student in determining preparedness, yes, great, I'm all for it. But what if external observations have enough distortion to put a decision out of your favor?


I was reading through an evaluation of me that was very detailed (some tests and interviews to ascertain dx and functioning), and while it captured the state of living and my general appearance and public approach to strangers, it was full of half-truths (not to imply deception, as in addition to being based on only a glimpse of my life and on the notes that were written down rather than on an amazing memory, but also that my approach to strangers is vastly different to how I am with others, mostly consisting of common stock pleasantries, echolalia, stimming, and stronger sensory experiences).

(In a further confirmation of this fact of life, they even wrote a half-truth that is concretely, verifiably false: that I'd never had an IEP based on a misunderstanding of my interview statements about how the high school delayed my IEP and never gave transition services other than a short paper detailing my strengths and weaknesses, which, while admittedly could have been clearer, were very detailed and repeated often enough. While this could just as well have been due to ambiguity in my account I gave - I do not recall such large extent of ambiguity as to grant such large discrepancies of accounts, but memory is fallible and it is quite possible - psychological consultations consist largely, almost entirely of statements of the individual and the interpretations made of them, so a clumsily constructed explanation should not be relied on, and hopefully such reports would be taken with large hills of salt).

Oddly enough, it was another half-truth, though one much more reflective of reality, when it was noted that I had never received transition services yet received some form of special education services.

Come to think of it, I have no idea what she thought I was trying to say based off what came out in that weird report! Just got back the report, GAF 40-45 and autism confirmed via ABAS and ADOS; WASI 3 in similarities, 17 vocab, 14 block design, 12 matrix reasoning; apparently they say I have a disability called chemical sensitivity when I referred to my being overstimulated by certain smells - yet another half-truth finding its way into report, my facts, perspectives on them, mixing with their interpretations and vantage points, this climate seems optimized to highlight the biases in human perspectives and reporting which makes a real problem when one person's report is seen as less valuable or reliable a contribution.

Happy Autistic Pride Day!

I started the party last night, and stayed up the whole night. Didn't really have much to do, so I took an online Raven's IQ test around 4:30 this morning.

It was fun, but I must've been so wired on my imaginary coffee, because I got through the first three quarters of the thing in five minutes. Got a 104 (not a high fever though). Not bad - though I still feel foolish for having zipped through it, thinking I was getting everything right. Ah, well. Good to put arrogance to bed, even if the rest of me failed to nod off.

Another way to celebrate: I figured out how to do a makeshift version of smores involving my microwave. I learned from the last time my lesson about plastic in the microwave, and the WRONG way to melt chocolate, so I did some research, and heated up some water, then put the chocolate I wanted melted in a measuring cup and let the heat energy transfer from the hot water to the plastic to the chocolate.

It was a good experiment. One I'm sure any self-respecting hungry chemist would be glad to review. ;-)

Still working on a couple video projects so far. One is part of a thread on AFF, which will involve me talking about various experiences as an autistic person.

Another one is more of a self-contained, mini-documentary (mini both for time length and because of a limited selection of subjects). Also am working on the planning stages for another video project to submit to the possibility of being included in a...er, a London something, I can't remember, except that I'm excited to submit my contribution as soon as it's ready.

Gay marriage! Not htat it's new news, just, yeah, they talked about it more on the news because the licenses are getting issued. Ah. Gotta love California. I wonder sometimes what would be the social-political analogue of the legalization of same-sex marriage to autistic rights.

*shrugs*

Well, don't think it really matters. There wouldn't be an exact equivalent anyway, in terms of nature of it. Though I do sometimes worry about the threat of people who claim that autistics would make lesser parents, which particularly strikes a nerve with me as the daughter of a spectrum dad and me, with hopes to raise (a) child(ren) at some future time.

Watch this page for pics! I will edit them into my post as soon as I get them.

Oh! Boredom has it's better edges. Apparently I'm a chiuwuwa:

You Are a Chihuahua Puppy

Small, high strung, and loyal. You do best in the city with a adults - young kids could crush you!

What Breed of Puppy Are You?

ON Growing Up One Arm in the Straitjacket

There is a spiral, a pattern that embeds itself into the order of the natural world. A mathematical oddity. An improbability. The Greeks saw in it truth and beauty. Today it has applications in the stock market. To most, it is just a pattern unfolding in a patch of dead, scattered sand.

The sand is what gets me. It’s what draws my attention, as does the lone paperclip that catches a small bit of light as it rests in the slight shadow of the nearby desk. The pattern, the golden spiral, is to me the ripple of an ocean wave transposed to a dream. A pure expression unbound by linguistic ambiguities, one that transcends definition and yields to unadulterated communication.

I spent most of my childhood afternoons in class gazing in various directions. Sometimes up the front of the classroom, sometimes the window. Sometimes a wall. Didn’t matter, really. It was the gazing - the thinking - that was the point. However I managed to elude the misperception that I was disengaged from reality as long as I did remains as mysterious to me as is the hidden meaning I am supposed to extract from such written expression as “;)”.

If my teachers didn’t notice anything unusual, my sisters sure did. And while not saying so outright, my mom certainly must have noticed, for all of her exasperated attempts to understand why “simple” things were so much more difficult for me than other things, things that would typically be considered complicated and challenging. I quickly ascertained that I was some different kind of person, a foreign person within the only home I’d ever known. Culture clashes were inevitable, but it was hard for either party to not feel personally targeted, as there was no clear physical indicator that my culture even existed.

Before anyone ever uttered the word “autism”, I was keenly aware that people like me were routinely shoved into institutions under the premise that their lives were not worth the trouble of accommodating them independently, and that such effort would be wasted on individuals perceived to be clearly incapable of enjoying it. I still remember watching a program on TV in the early 1990s, and all the gloom and doom predictions people made for the people featured, the people I pointed at and said, “They’re like me!” with childlike enthusiasm. My mom corrected me, said that I wasn’t like them, as they were severely disabled and would bang their heads. I wondered what made me so different from them.

Whatever my perceptions, the message was clear: there is a set pattern of development that typical children follow like a map with only one road. And if these milestones are not met within given ranges, then that is sign of disease process. Not a sign of having a different sort of body than people expected, not a sign of having a different sort of mind. Not a sign of difference or disability, but of disease.

This as the backdrop of my childhood, I made the unconscious yet purposeful effort to watch myself every second of my life that I was in public. Make eye contact, no matter how much it hurts, just do it. Explaining that the lack of eye contact means you’re paying attention isn’t good enough. No hand gestures, either. And don’t rock, but talk even if it pains you. You have to walk a certain way that is unnatural and difficult, you must keep your head at a proper, normal angle, and don’t let your mouth hang open. If you don’t keep this up, you look retarded, and you know how much your peers belittle the mentally retarded, as if they’re somehow lesser. If a loud noise scares you, or an offending touch hurts you, you cannot shout or move away. You must bear all intrusions, no matter how violent, with silence and good behavior.

I like to try this thought experiment with people who don’t understand how stressful this can be, people who think that if someone is capable of imitating “normal” behavior, that they should act that way all the time. Now imagine that you are a child, and I am a doctor. A teacher. A parent. I tell you that it is absolutely imperative to rock back and forth for most of your waking life, despite your never having had the inclination or the thought to do so. Although too much is forbidden, you may talk sometimes. But only on one subject, and you must never look at someone’s eyes, or even their face. If you do, you must stare “through” and not “at” – whether or not you actually understand this distinction. And whenever you screw up, I am going to correct you, and withhold rewards. After all, these things are good behavior. Only good behavior gets rewards. Bad behavior never gets a reward, because we don’t really want to see that anymore.

When I advanced to seventh grade, the reward for good behavior changed from approval to safety, as if the junior high were operating as a miniature institution. While the total population of the institution was about 500, only a small handful of us were held captive to its most prized tenet of conformity beyond possibility. If someone threatened my life, it was because I could not afford designer jeans. If someone stole from me, it was because I look strange when having a seizure. If someone beat me up, it was because I failed to acquiesce to the moral superiority of my verbally abusive peers, but rather entertained the foolish thought of defending my dignity.

I sometimes like to think I have permanently overcome the flashbacks I still from time to time experience, that I am strong enough to stare my memories in the face as they creep along at my heels and to say “no more.” I sometimes like to think that once these personal emotions are resolved that I have defeated the problem. I sometimes like to think that my experiences were aberrations. As I face school, public transportation, job interviews, dating, adoption and parenting, though, I cannot ever ignore the fact that what has happened to me is a mere appendage of a wider phenomenon. Regardless of my own circumstances, through the collective experiences of the autistic community, I will always have one arm tucked firmly out of sight in the straitjacket.

Autistic Self-Advocacy Myths

The following is from a post I made on the Autism Speaks forums. I addressed it to the parents of autistic kids who have only seen neurodiversity and autistic self-advocates as being against helping their kids, to demonstrate the realities of what it means to be against cure, to show that we're not just some highly successful math geniuses who think autism is just a difference rather than both a difference and a disability. Don't think it was very effective, though, considering nobody has replied besides me (only 36 views, too).

I hate to see the polarization between autistic self-advocates who are against cure and the people of autism speaks and cure autism now. Because the truth is that we are all out to help improve the lot of autistics, and it's a shame to see people so easily become divided.

It happens when an aspie writes cocky that they are superior to NTs. It happens when accepting autism becomes dirty words with implication that we are to ignore people's difficulties that are due to disability and pretend that they don't struggle.

These, of course, are the more extreme of the both sides, and they do not represent the true motivations behind the causes - which, as stated already, are for the bright futures of autistics who are all too often left in the dust.

The truth is, accepting autism doesn't mean letting kids bang their heads and pretend that autism is a wonderful, positive thing that everyone should want. It means looking at the various limitations and disability and helping the person to adapt to the world and, where reasonable to adapt the world to autism. Most people I have read on this board seem to already fit this description of loving their kids as they are and wanting to help them get along, except that they also express the desire for a cure.

Autistic anti-cure self-advocates support helping people to talk, or if that doesn't work, to help them to communicate by typing or signing or such. And of course to also try to help with self-help skills (I myself am 17 and can't brush my own hair that is about shoulder-length by myself. I have, however, learned toileting skills and how to wash myself).

So I identify as autistic (Diagnosed Asperger's age 10). However, I am not so reactionary that, just because I am adamantly against cure for autism that I would deem anybody who supports it to be some "conformist NT" or some such nonsense. I want to write on behalf of autistic self-advocates who, like me, reject these extreme views. (The extreme people tend to be far more proliferate (is this a word? I tend to use words that I have no idea what they mean) and so are more noticeable.

I understand that there are many people whose needs for supports and services far outweigh mine. I speak, have the self-help skills I mention, and such things. In fact, I for a long time, while completely against curing Asperger's/HFA, wholly supported curing LFA autistics. It wasn't until this summer that I reevaluated my views and realized that I had been misguided.

Through the Internet, I got to converse with and read from autistic people who are considdered classically low-functioning Kanner's type autism. People who were, variously, mentally retarded, or nonverbal, or lacked in many "basic" self-help skills. Usually fit more than one of these descriptors. And they are against cure, too.

I am only asking that you reevaluate your views of autistic self-advocates and the goal of a cure. I will not try to use scare or sympathy tactics to try to sway you. Of course autism isn't easy. And even though I am what would be called high-functioning, I don't feel any advantages or special gifts that I attribute to autism. My heightened senses, they lead me to sensory overload. It is a foreign concept to me what it is to derive pleasure from this sensitivity.

So I don't feel I have any "autistic gifts" and most certainly not savant abilities. In any case, it is my whole point that people of all opinions and backgrounds and experiences need to tone it down, consider the perspective of the other side, and to look at things a little less narrowly.

After all, some of the deficits of autism (theory of mind, perspective-taking, self-absorption) are also as commonly universal in NTs, except that the deficits are expressed differently and to different degrees (such as, a NT who would pass the Sally-Anne test but doesn't understand why her sister could possibly prefer strawberry over chocolate, or the autistic who fails miserably the Sally-Anne test but considers the differing views and experiences of a cyber-audience - such as me).

I want to add that the last example gives impression that it is meant to categorize NTs as unviersally having the skill of passing the test while not considering other people's different perspectives or autistics as universally being unable to pass the test but being able to see other people's point of view. I was just trying to show how it is dangerous to oversimplify the categories and in doing this did the same. I have known online and in person many NTs and autistics who are the opposite of the example, which was intended to be a randomly selected (apparent) contradiction of the definition of the skills and deficits that NTs and autistics are presumed to have. To show that it is not so cut-and-dried as professionals sometimes make it seem.