4 ms·

In the ideal world there'd be no companies explicitly seeking or denying the autistic, just jobs available and anyone applying and then viewed as more than auti

• chimeracoder 12y ago
  > In the ideal world there'd be no companies explicitly seeking or denying the autistic, just jobs available and anyone applying and then viewed as more than autistic or not autistic. Perhaps, but this only works in a world in which our evaluation criteria and processes are sophisticated and mature enough to be fair to all applicants. The article illustrates a few reasons this is not the case (such as expecting candidates to look you in the eye when talking to you). Interviewers (and systems/processes) have biases - the first step to eliminating those subtle (or sometimes not-so-subtle) biases is to be aware of them and actively work to eliminating those biases, not pretending that being {race,gender,disability,etc.}-'blind' is the same as being 'neutral' and therefore unbiased. > Secondly, but perhaps more important, I see companies that solely hire the autistic more as taking advantage than as providing assistance. This may be true; I'm not familiar enough with programs such as the one mentioned in the article.
  • baddox 12y ago
    > Perhaps, but this only works in a world in which our evaluation criteria and processes are sophisticated and mature enough to be fair to all applicants. That problem is that "fair" is a subjective notion. Most people value being fair, but they will disagree on which decisions are fair.
• mamcx 12y ago
  Do you understand that autistic not mean "Like Sheldon Cooper?". Autism is use too broadly now, so spread that include mildly issues. A serious autistic persons is unemployable (or need constant supervision). Even the most sympathetic employer would have a great problem trying to employ somebody that can't communicate, can't control itself, can't take commands, can't adapt to the situation, maybe will attack with ferocity for (apparent) no reason, or try to injure itself, and so on.
  • Liesmith 12y ago
    It's not used 'too broadly.' Autism is a disorder on a spectrum. Some people have mild autism, some people have moderate and some people have severe autism. These are technical terms. Also calling people 'autistic' and later calling people with autism 'it' as in 'try to injure itself' is a really shitty way to talk about human beings. Check yourself.
    • sdrothrock 12y ago
      > Also calling people 'autistic' and later calling people with autism 'it' as in 'try to injure itself' is a really shitty way to talk about human beings. Check yourself. mamcx is not a native English speaker and was perhaps trying to use "it" as a gender-inspecific pronoun rather than intentionally portraying people on the autistic spectrum as "objects" or "inhuman."
      • mamcx 12y ago
        yep, sorry for the bad choice of words.
        • sdrothrock 12y ago
          No problem. I think most people will tend to use a plural (they, them) in this kind of situation. People who are pickier about grammar will probably say "he or she" or "him or her."
    • dubfan 12y ago
      Did you read the article? The author uses "autistic" to refer to people with autism (and additionally rejects the term "people with autism")
      • Liesmith 12y ago
        Yeah I read the article, and his rejection of 'people with autism' is akin to 'deaf culture' nonsense. Autism is a tragic, often crippling disorder and this guy wants it to be a culture. That's fine, he can feel however he wants and construct his identity however he feels best about himself. Calling a person 'it' is considerably worse, though, and that's what I was objecting to above.