OK, even when I trimmed it way down, it was too much for blooger to accept in the commets. So here I post it (I aslo expanded quite a lot, beyong just responding to the commets.
(This is an expansion on the topic of Required Medical Leave rules, as addressed at my last post.)
Club 166: I agree, that struck me as well. and I have wondered at the back of my head if my mentions of autistic-self advocacy (as opposed to pity awareness) have stirred any fears in the administration at the top, whether this rule is a reflection of that or the implementation of it is a reflection of that culture. My first version of my post addressed this, but I lost it somewhere on my computer.
In any case, even if they won't let me pursue my studies there (they will probably be especially taken aback when they learn that I am intending to become a doctor - from this point on I will probably be judged from the standpoint of how they perceived my functioning at the time of my second quarter at college, regardless of all the cooking and cleaning skills my parents are going to work with me on).
While I will try my best to minimize communication between disability services and professors, which is too bad that I feel compelled to this but that's the world, the community I live in, there are many misconceptions floating about me, due to the very jagged skill profile I have in almost all areas academic, social, and self-care, and the way that people resist these apparent contradictions and try to make the picture fit neatly in their heads.
One thing interesting, is that when my skills fall apart in other areas (such as, not folding the laundry and not having a place to store it so it's everywhere, the trash isn't taken out since I don't know how to sort it, less hygiene), then it's my speech, academics, and so forth that fall apart first, but I ramp up the socializing and other leisure activities.
So it was interesting, on the ABAS, when comparing my ratings to the disability services director, that while most of the ratings more or less agreed, when it came to leisure, mine was much higher than her rating (like 9 or 11 compared to, say, 3), as my extracurriculars like the gay rights and disability rights clubs and my social life were the only things that were strong at that time, aside from my obsession with Cabaret and my own musical I am writing (Aspielicious).
It made me wonder: she knew I was active in the clubs and knew people in them and interacted with them, so - did she rate me so low, on the assumption that someone whose life skills were so much less than most people my age have mastered cannot attain a satisfactory leisure life?
Is it that someone who listens to the same musical soundtrack over and over MUST become bored with it just like someone who is NT probably would in that time, and only repeats the activity because they have a joyless compulsion towards it, rather than it giving them true pleasure or instilling any passion? (That can be true of OCD, sure, but this is neither here nor there, and I have never been identified under that umbrella.)
Adelaide Dupont:
The GAF was determined based on the ABAS score (I answered a questionnaire and so did the disability services director). I took the ABAS with my parents, a teacher and I believe a neuropsychologist rating, the month before graduating high school, so if they give me trouble over it, we can try to dig up that paperwork and show it to them (it ought to be a higher score since I wasn't living alone then - while it doesn't really prove anything other than functioning fluctuates that anyone worth their salt in the educational/disability fields ought to know, it would be worth it to demonstrate that I am not in developmental stasis, especially after my parents have had the time to teach me some other life skills so that I can manage better on my own. (I'm going to ask my mom to get me a flip fold!)
As for half-truths, for instance - I don't have problems with all fragrances, but it seems to have to do with how mild it is, or how familiar (like an orange fragrance lotion). Also, there were things like when I mentioned bullying in junior high, the report describes classmates locking me in a room for hours, when I very clearly stated it was a counselor (whether it was typo, memory fault, wrongly noted in haste, or whatever - it's not that the authors of these reports are deceptive, its that details, sometimes major ones, get misunderstood or changed, and the problem arises when such a report is used as more than just an impressionist painting of the state of living at the time for me, but is used as a basis for future decisions about my life).
Another example of half-truth, for instance, is this little gem of misinterpretation: according to the report "Melody wanted it known that she cannot do 'stranger talk'. When someone approaches her she doesn't know or barely knows and begins to talk with her she becomes totally overwhelmed. Then that feeling of being overwhelmed gets attached to layers of more anxiety based on stimuli (color, smell, noise) and Melody has to stop what she's doing and try to recover. At times the ending result is she has to return home when she can and recover."
What this is likely based on, was when I said that I have much more difficulty initiating speech with strangers and people I don't know well, than with people I know well, and may try to wait or get the other person to initiate speech first, unless it's some situation where it's very important for me to initiate speech, and that in those cases I have to pay more attention to the surrounding senses and this is why I tend to stim more around strangers than with people I'm close to, so that I am able to recover my words for conversation. So I may rock or flap or spin or make noise like echolalia or whatever is most practical at the time.
I may be more fortunate about how these reports are taken, since it states near the beginning that I've never had an IEP, a couple times, even though I had an IEP for a couple years, and a 504 accommodation plan since I was 10 or 11 from the ASD evaluation that occurred between the ages of 9 and 10, and we have copies of the papers that prove it. Most reports that have the similar half-truths about people's lives do not have such a glaring inaccuracy, so a person disputing a therapist's report may be considered to have much less credibility when critiquing the report to other professionals than I would have, and even I may not be taken seriously since it could be blamed on "me not being clear" (but then again, so is just about every other statement and interpretation made in the report about me - just as prone, if not more, to biases and miscommunications on mine and the psychologist's part).
So this report certainly has its valid uses, namely its original purpose of identifying services I would be eligible for, and the diagnosis, but the problem is that in order to have the director of disability services participate in the survey of ABAS, I had to sign a form that information could be shared with her (or so I was led to believe anyway). With this new rule implemented and what I perceive to be a growing climate of fear towards people who act atypically, and an impulse to boot them off campus instead of connecting them to services that can help them, as happened with me, all too slowly.
Myself, I was studying physics, planning to study theoretical particle physics, but I lost my passion for it, and decided to pursue my true love, despite all the flak I am sure to face: medicine. See, I've wanted to be a doctor since at least junior high when I realized what it was really like (and not like the silly TV dramas), and especially catapulted towards it when I was 16 and a neurologist presented to our school (I was in the bio-medical club) and described his experiences as an intern. I remember thinking, "Wow, with my lack of social life, I could spend all day studying with some breaks to leisure so I can maintain sanity!"
Unfortunately, in the report, they wrote that "it seems clear that teaching would be a very challenging and unlikely career path...as it would likely depend heavily on her weaknesses" I do agree that it would be challenging and unlikely, but for entirely different reasons. They think me very rigid because I like routines and derive great pleasure from them, but I am not disturbed when they are broken, as I was when I was a child, and I have always loved spontaneous breaks in routine, if I had a moment's notice or was in control and it was not an unpleasant activity I would actually enjoy the spontaneity (forever an odd autistic - spontaneity-loving routine-making autistics are out there!!! :) ).
So while I think that, provided that I learn life skills more (and even the report acknowledges that I will likely have "a significant degree of independence as an adult" with skills teaching - the phrase "as an adult" initially gave me pause, but given that I was scarcely 19 and referred to as a young woman elsewhere, I don't think it is being suggestive of a perception of youth, even if such perceptions exist in her mind), so that I can be successful on my own, that I could be successful as a doctor, I now hesitate to consult with academic or student advising about things such as course selection (due to my extensive illnesses - really I think that rather than the illnesses the main thing that kept me out of school was the crisis I was going through, in wanting to pursue a subject where people wouldn't have confidence in me - people almost expect autistic theoretical physicists these days, but not autistic medical doctors, who work clinically rather than in research).
I think I can manage on my own mostly, correspond with professors (for some reason I am generally more comfortable contacting professors by visiting their office in person than by e-mailing, whereas for certain social and professional interactions I am more comfortable in e-mail).
However, I do think that the prejudices will be difficult to manage - I started out the year out and proud, faced certain consequences, some expected some unexpected, and now I plan to lay low around the professors, yet wish to continue advocacy work and encourage other neurodivergent students - I feel myself caught in a vortex, a paradox of ideals and aspirations, seeking out a pattern for reconciliations. Odd that in this age of acceptance my peers have lost the subtext.
Showing posts with label social control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social control. Show all posts
07 July 2009
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:
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:
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.
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.
19 April 2008
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.
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.
31 December 2007
Behaviorism on the Playground
If I were to write that parents were specifically instructing their children to be agents of social control to enforce social norms among their peers, I would have accusation after accusation leveled against my sanity.
They would call me paranoid. And I'd likely agree.
While perhaps a grand-scale conspiracy to purposefully train children to behave "typically" and suppress creativity or originality of expression would sound scarier, more Orwellian, I would argue that the system we are placed in does just that, but is more dangerous, as it is not specifically mandated. If it were specifically mandated, then people would recognize what it is.
Kids grow up with the ideas that some kinds of people are inferior. Some kinds of people just don't have a future. Some kinds, even if the individual doesn't have any specific problem with them, are "just begging" to get harassed, "just asking for" a theft. A beating. A rape. A murder.
Some have asked me why there is a need for an Autistic Rights organization, such as the one I have established at my school with the help and inspiration from my friends. It wasn't until the seventh grade that I started to catch on to the fact that this kind of abuse is inherent to the institution.
I started to understand why I had been refused the right to file a report for the attacks committed against me, and then a year later, when expressing my anger at having been refused, given the token privilege of writing a report which would have no real legitimacy, as it was filed approximately six months after the actual incident. "Too bad that you didn't file it last year, or we could've done something about it."
Ha. What a fucking crock. However hard it was for me, even though I had to spend day after day going into the office, being unable to summon words to speak (I had no means to type at the time), and then after a week of sitting and doing nothing, missing the classes which would only bore and torment me (the offenders were in nearly every class), I finally asked to file a report, when I realized this might be an option when seeing a girl come in to file a report after a boy said some nasty things to her, and being flatly refused, even though I told her that the offenses included assault and sexual harassment (in retrospect, sexual assault would also apply).
So how was the response? I told her a couple of the tame things that had been said to me. I told her there were some worse things, but I couldn't say them. She set her pen to one of the pink slips used to call students out of class, and once she had progressed to the fourth one, I asked what she was doing. She replied she was calling them in here, to let them speak for themselves, face to face with me. In utter horror, I fled. Ran out of her office, wandered for who knows how many hours around campus, unable to even find my way back anywhere at this point.
This same counselor was the one who told me that, because I rocked, because I had seizures, because I didn't dress in popular clothing (hand-me-downs, such as plain t-shirts and jeans that hardly fit, don't exactly count as popular among teenage girls, I suppose), because I was rumored to be lesbian, because I didn't talk much, because I was politically considered radically liberal (only because most of the population of the area is very conservative), because I had an odd gait, etc. etc. These were all reasons she told me I had to expect getting beaten up and insulted.
"I never asked to be popular. I just want to have what I am legally entitled to, and that is a safe educational environment." Ignored again. Not that it should have surprised me. She is, after all, the same counselor who told me, "There are three things you don't talk about: religion, politics, and space aliens." (UFOs were a special interest of mine.) To which the other, visiting counselor from the high school replied, "And abortion."
Such strange advice, considering that, outside of a close acquaintance or two, I did not in fact discuss any of these. Though, the first year of high school, I prided myself in engaging in intelligent conversations with my peers on these as well as a number of other subjects. But when it comes right down to it, when you rarely talk, and you never approach people you're not well acquainted with, you don't even get much opportunity to go at length on discussing interests. The only people I got to do that with, really, were my family.
If someone told a woman, "It's your fault you got raped because you're attractive - you have to expect that kind of treatment when you're attractive" wouldn't there be an outrage? Likewise, isn't telling someone that it's their fault they've been assaulted because they're autistic and look weird as much an outrage?
The problem here, is that the social control here implemented is implicit to the people and the institutions that run them. There needs to be watchdogs for this kind of discrimination. Every person should know that their rights in the school or in the workplace or out on the streets should be secured, regardless of neurological status. Such a thing should also cover people who don't have a diagnosis, but who have been made to feel that it is their fault for not conforming.
The main thing to get across here is that there is a difference between a person being unpopular and a person who is having crimes committed against them because of that unpopularity. Such a policy as I wrote isn't some attempt to make everybody feel like they're accepted by everybody else. Such is a noble goal, but it is not a goal that can be attained by passing a law. Attaining acceptance is the job of advocacy. The job of laws is legal protection.
If such a law were in place, I would not have been petrified night after night of what punishment the next day I might face for being who I cannot help but be - who I wouldn't want an alternative but to be. Such a law would mean that, while I know it is hard to be part of an "unwanted" class, a burden to the normal, "deserving" people, at least I will have assurance that it is really, truly not my fault.
The problem here is access. Students, particularly disabled students, need a clear route by which to access the safe education they are legally entitled to, and by consequence to the safe existence to which they are morally entitled. Just like we run tapes and distribute brochures to educate students about sexual harassment and their rights, we should actively reach out to students who are autistic or otherwise disabled, different, or considered damaged.
Until then, we will always have students providing a negative stimulus, and teachers and counselors reinforcing, and regardless of capacity or desire for change the students at the hands of such treatment will forever remain clinging to the chainlink fence in hopes of escaping to the other side.
They would call me paranoid. And I'd likely agree.
While perhaps a grand-scale conspiracy to purposefully train children to behave "typically" and suppress creativity or originality of expression would sound scarier, more Orwellian, I would argue that the system we are placed in does just that, but is more dangerous, as it is not specifically mandated. If it were specifically mandated, then people would recognize what it is.
Kids grow up with the ideas that some kinds of people are inferior. Some kinds of people just don't have a future. Some kinds, even if the individual doesn't have any specific problem with them, are "just begging" to get harassed, "just asking for" a theft. A beating. A rape. A murder.
Some have asked me why there is a need for an Autistic Rights organization, such as the one I have established at my school with the help and inspiration from my friends. It wasn't until the seventh grade that I started to catch on to the fact that this kind of abuse is inherent to the institution.
I started to understand why I had been refused the right to file a report for the attacks committed against me, and then a year later, when expressing my anger at having been refused, given the token privilege of writing a report which would have no real legitimacy, as it was filed approximately six months after the actual incident. "Too bad that you didn't file it last year, or we could've done something about it."
Ha. What a fucking crock. However hard it was for me, even though I had to spend day after day going into the office, being unable to summon words to speak (I had no means to type at the time), and then after a week of sitting and doing nothing, missing the classes which would only bore and torment me (the offenders were in nearly every class), I finally asked to file a report, when I realized this might be an option when seeing a girl come in to file a report after a boy said some nasty things to her, and being flatly refused, even though I told her that the offenses included assault and sexual harassment (in retrospect, sexual assault would also apply).
So how was the response? I told her a couple of the tame things that had been said to me. I told her there were some worse things, but I couldn't say them. She set her pen to one of the pink slips used to call students out of class, and once she had progressed to the fourth one, I asked what she was doing. She replied she was calling them in here, to let them speak for themselves, face to face with me. In utter horror, I fled. Ran out of her office, wandered for who knows how many hours around campus, unable to even find my way back anywhere at this point.
This same counselor was the one who told me that, because I rocked, because I had seizures, because I didn't dress in popular clothing (hand-me-downs, such as plain t-shirts and jeans that hardly fit, don't exactly count as popular among teenage girls, I suppose), because I was rumored to be lesbian, because I didn't talk much, because I was politically considered radically liberal (only because most of the population of the area is very conservative), because I had an odd gait, etc. etc. These were all reasons she told me I had to expect getting beaten up and insulted.
"I never asked to be popular. I just want to have what I am legally entitled to, and that is a safe educational environment." Ignored again. Not that it should have surprised me. She is, after all, the same counselor who told me, "There are three things you don't talk about: religion, politics, and space aliens." (UFOs were a special interest of mine.) To which the other, visiting counselor from the high school replied, "And abortion."
Such strange advice, considering that, outside of a close acquaintance or two, I did not in fact discuss any of these. Though, the first year of high school, I prided myself in engaging in intelligent conversations with my peers on these as well as a number of other subjects. But when it comes right down to it, when you rarely talk, and you never approach people you're not well acquainted with, you don't even get much opportunity to go at length on discussing interests. The only people I got to do that with, really, were my family.
If someone told a woman, "It's your fault you got raped because you're attractive - you have to expect that kind of treatment when you're attractive" wouldn't there be an outrage? Likewise, isn't telling someone that it's their fault they've been assaulted because they're autistic and look weird as much an outrage?
The problem here, is that the social control here implemented is implicit to the people and the institutions that run them. There needs to be watchdogs for this kind of discrimination. Every person should know that their rights in the school or in the workplace or out on the streets should be secured, regardless of neurological status. Such a thing should also cover people who don't have a diagnosis, but who have been made to feel that it is their fault for not conforming.
The main thing to get across here is that there is a difference between a person being unpopular and a person who is having crimes committed against them because of that unpopularity. Such a policy as I wrote isn't some attempt to make everybody feel like they're accepted by everybody else. Such is a noble goal, but it is not a goal that can be attained by passing a law. Attaining acceptance is the job of advocacy. The job of laws is legal protection.
If such a law were in place, I would not have been petrified night after night of what punishment the next day I might face for being who I cannot help but be - who I wouldn't want an alternative but to be. Such a law would mean that, while I know it is hard to be part of an "unwanted" class, a burden to the normal, "deserving" people, at least I will have assurance that it is really, truly not my fault.
The problem here is access. Students, particularly disabled students, need a clear route by which to access the safe education they are legally entitled to, and by consequence to the safe existence to which they are morally entitled. Just like we run tapes and distribute brochures to educate students about sexual harassment and their rights, we should actively reach out to students who are autistic or otherwise disabled, different, or considered damaged.
Until then, we will always have students providing a negative stimulus, and teachers and counselors reinforcing, and regardless of capacity or desire for change the students at the hands of such treatment will forever remain clinging to the chainlink fence in hopes of escaping to the other side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)