3 ms·

So, honest question: how is this not discrimination? Not that I feel discriminated against personally, but it seems like they'd be opening themselves up to a H

So, honest question: how is this not discrimination? Not that I feel discriminated against personally, but it seems like they'd be opening themselves up to a HUGE legal liability. You can't hire someone based on their gender identity or the color of their skin, but you can hire based on a physical difference in the brain?

army 12y ago
Uh, it's completely acceptable to "discriminate" against people based on factors that relate to their ability to succeed in the job. I don't think it's controversial that people's social skills or style of social interaction has a bearing on their job performance. You can argue to what extent and so on, but it's bizarre to think that it's not relevant.
dtech 12y ago
Autism is, in some aspects, a handicap, so this is not much different from programmes to help e.g. blind people. Or more neutral a programme to help types of underrepresented people like women or certain races. You could maybe qualify it as positive discrimination, but nowhere it's said that autistic people will have a higher chance of a job so it's not even really that.
atom-morgan 12y ago
It is and what people consider permissible discrimination is subjective as we see here.
emodendroket 12y ago
"People who do not have a disability" are not a protected class, while people with disabilities are. This seems intuitive enough to me...
- mathgeek 12y ago
  The problem with this statement is that you need to define "a disability." You will immediately have to deal with the problem of classifying clinical depression, for example.
  - jacalata 12y ago
    You know this has already been done, and clinical depression is indeed considered a disabling condition, right? Check out the ADA and SSDI.
    - mathgeek 12y ago
      Yes, I'm aware of it. I was making sure that the respondant was, as it's the classic example of why you can't simply say "has a disability" as a way of classifying individuals. Plenty of people have disabilities that you cannot easily identify, let alone require them to disclose.

army 12y ago

Uh, it's completely acceptable to "discriminate" against people based on factors that relate to their ability to succeed in the job. I don't think it's controversial that people's social skills or style of social interaction has a bearing on their job performance. You can argue to what extent and so on, but it's bizarre to think that it's not relevant.

dtech 12y ago

Autism is, in some aspects, a handicap, so this is not much different from programmes to help e.g. blind people. Or more neutral a programme to help types of underrepresented people like women or certain races. You could maybe qualify it as positive discrimination, but nowhere it's said that autistic people will have a higher chance of a job so it's not even really that.

atom-morgan 12y ago

It is and what people consider permissible discrimination is subjective as we see here.

emodendroket 12y ago

"People who do not have a disability" are not a protected class, while people with disabilities are. This seems intuitive enough to me...

mathgeek 12y ago
The problem with this statement is that you need to define "a disability." You will immediately have to deal with the problem of classifying clinical depression, for example.
- jacalata 12y ago
  You know this has already been done, and clinical depression is indeed considered a disabling condition, right? Check out the ADA and SSDI.
  - mathgeek 12y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of it. I was making sure that the respondant was, as it's the classic example of why you can't simply say "has a disability" as a way of classifying individuals. Plenty of people have disabilities that you cannot easily identify, let alone require them to disclose.