But Goulston, I feel, could do better and he is still guided by some fundamental misconceptions about autistic people. He writes, "I would however be curious to ask those who have responded to my prior blog if the pain is tied to feeling the pain they have caused in others or is it do to feeling they have done something wrong and are embarrassed." Dr. Goulston, you have access to the Internet. You have access to numerous published accounts in which Asperger's autistics have discussed their feelings--yes, feelings--and ways of understanding the world. In trying to apologize, don't continue to treat the population you've offended as test subjects you want to test your hypothesis on. Clearly, you don't know very much about autism. Why don't you listen to those who do rather than continuing to make offensive assumptions? And yes, the way this question is phrased is still offensive. Making us the subjects of your blog posts is not a particularly honorable or respectful way of getting to know our way of thinking. A clinician such as yourself should surely know better.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Oh, Goody...
More celebrity diagnosing, this time from an actual doctor, though his credentials in autism/Asperger's Syndrome are questionable, to put it very mildly. This time the diagnosed individuals are Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Eliot Spitzer. Apparently Dr. Goulston misplaced his copy of the DSM IV and thinks that adultery is a symptom of being on the autism spectrum. To his credit, Goulston did offer an apology, which I commend him for. Goodness knows we've seen too many writers on this blog who have refused to apologize for their hurtful, offensive remarks.
But Goulston, I feel, could do better and he is still guided by some fundamental misconceptions about autistic people. He writes, "I would however be curious to ask those who have responded to my prior blog if the pain is tied to feeling the pain they have caused in others or is it do to feeling they have done something wrong and are embarrassed." Dr. Goulston, you have access to the Internet. You have access to numerous published accounts in which Asperger's autistics have discussed their feelings--yes, feelings--and ways of understanding the world. In trying to apologize, don't continue to treat the population you've offended as test subjects you want to test your hypothesis on. Clearly, you don't know very much about autism. Why don't you listen to those who do rather than continuing to make offensive assumptions? And yes, the way this question is phrased is still offensive. Making us the subjects of your blog posts is not a particularly honorable or respectful way of getting to know our way of thinking. A clinician such as yourself should surely know better.
But Goulston, I feel, could do better and he is still guided by some fundamental misconceptions about autistic people. He writes, "I would however be curious to ask those who have responded to my prior blog if the pain is tied to feeling the pain they have caused in others or is it do to feeling they have done something wrong and are embarrassed." Dr. Goulston, you have access to the Internet. You have access to numerous published accounts in which Asperger's autistics have discussed their feelings--yes, feelings--and ways of understanding the world. In trying to apologize, don't continue to treat the population you've offended as test subjects you want to test your hypothesis on. Clearly, you don't know very much about autism. Why don't you listen to those who do rather than continuing to make offensive assumptions? And yes, the way this question is phrased is still offensive. Making us the subjects of your blog posts is not a particularly honorable or respectful way of getting to know our way of thinking. A clinician such as yourself should surely know better.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Celebrating the Holidays, Neurodiversity-style
I'd like to wish all readers a happy holidays, regardless of what you might celebrate. (I know for Channukah this is on the late side.) I'd also like to suggest a great way to celebrate the holiday season with a little pro-neurodiversity activism. Write your Senators expressing your delight with Ari Ne'eman's appointment to the National Council on Disability. Simply sign up on Congress.org, and you'll be able to directly contact your representatives.
I also highly recommend this post from Left Brain/Right Brain, and encourage readers to pass it along to those who are skeptical and critical of Mr. Ne'eman's nomination. Comments which Mr. Ne'eman has made on this very blog disprove a lot of the nonsense being bandied about in regards to his views.
It amazes me that so many people in the "biomed" or even the wider autism community don't involve themselves in disability issues, don't acknowledge autism as a permanent disability, and then get irritated when they don't approve of the nominations for the National Council on Disability. Good riddance.
I also highly recommend this post from Left Brain/Right Brain, and encourage readers to pass it along to those who are skeptical and critical of Mr. Ne'eman's nomination. Comments which Mr. Ne'eman has made on this very blog disprove a lot of the nonsense being bandied about in regards to his views.
It amazes me that so many people in the "biomed" or even the wider autism community don't involve themselves in disability issues, don't acknowledge autism as a permanent disability, and then get irritated when they don't approve of the nominations for the National Council on Disability. Good riddance.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Is there really a problem with diagnostic "abuse"?
RiShawn Biddle of The American Spectator thinks that learning disabilities are overdiagnosed (among males):
From reading this article, I'm not sure Biddle understands what "being in the special education system" means. For many kids, being in the special education system means something as simple as having an IEP and receiving extra time on tests. On what basis does he claim that special ed students are "unlikely to ever graduate with a high school diploma"? For many students, accommodations help them to succeed.
Now, I agree that too many students are being put into segregated classes where they almost inevitably receive inferior educations. This is a problem which needs to be rectified. But Biddle's categorical condemnation of too many kids--by which he means boys--being in the special ed system is perpetuating the stigma which comes along with being diagnosed with a learning disability. ("Learning disability" in a broad sense. For many people autism isn't a learning disability per se as much as it is a disability in other areas, including areas which may make school difficult.)
And there is, of course, a significant gender dimension to this argument. Biddle is concerned about boys in particular:
I've heard various iterations of this argument before--boys are disadvantaged in the current school system because of the emphasis on "good behavior." I am somewhat sympathetic to certain aspects of this argument. The racial disparities which Biddle calls attention to are particularly troublesome, and indicative of clear racial biases in defining "problem children." But Biddle's refusal to acknowledge that receiving accommodations can be a good thing leads to a rather skewed presentation of the issue.
Most notably, Biddle misses the problem of girls who may need accommodations as well. Just because a girl may appear "docile" much or all of the time does not mean she doesn't have a neurological disability, or that she wouldn't potentially benefit from accommodations and other services. Biddle frames the issue as an overdiagnosis of boys while missing the issue of girls' underdiagnosis.
Having grown up in the U.S. K-12 system during the early years of greatly expanded special ed services, I am convinced that neuro-atypical boys and girls do indeed receive disparate treatment. I won't say there's across-the-board privileging of males, given how messed up the special ed system is, but in many cases girls are underprivileged, underdiagnosed, and underaccommodated. For about 95% of the time, I was one of those docile girls who didn't seem to need special accommodations. The rest of the time I often melted down spectacularly, and very noticeably, but no one thought this was a sign of a neurological disability. The school told my parents to take me to a therapist to work out my Problems, but did not suggest any kind of diagnostic battery for disabilities. Often, girls have Emotional Issues, to be fixed only by therapy, while boys have officially recognized disabilities which mean they receive accommodations. And in my case, I definitely noticed that I was being treated badly because I Had Emotional Issues. I learned to hide my problems from teachers and guidance counselors, to a significant extent, because creating my own accommodations worked better for me. I certainly didn't want to be further subjected to the pain, humiliation, and teasing that came along with having my problems openly acknowledged. And, of course, hiding my problems meant that they went even more unnoticed. People thought I'd "gotten better" because of the therapy, but the underlying disabilities were still present.
How many girls are hiding their problems? How many girls are having their problems misinterpreted? And how many of them seem like "docile girls" much of the time?
While there are a few valid points buried in Biddle's commentary, overall his article does not demonstrate a very complete understanding of the issues, and perpetuates disability stigma and the privileging of male experiences.
No one, male or female, should receive an inferior education because they're diagnosed with a disability. But it's not diagnosis which is the problem as much as the way people react to it. In many ways, increased recognition is a good thing for kids who would otherwise struggle, or be treated as Naughty Children. Stigma, prejudice, and segregation are the real problems and the real instances of "abuse." And I mean this to apply to race as well as disability.
Not being diagnosed is not a privilege in and of itself. Girls are not categorically privileged by virtue of their gender. There is actually considerable evidence to suggest that the reverse situation is occurring in many circumstances.
The real solution to the problem, however, lies in making classrooms more universally accessible from the start. Certainly I won't deny that this will take a great deal of work and planning. But universal design is ultimately of benefit to everyone. Including "rambunctious boys."
Nineteen percent of black male students and 16 percent of their white male peers attending Cleveland's public schools in the 2005-2006 school year were labeled with some form of learning disability. This meant that they were likely placed into the traditional public school district's special education program, from which they are unlikely to ever graduate with a high school diploma.
From reading this article, I'm not sure Biddle understands what "being in the special education system" means. For many kids, being in the special education system means something as simple as having an IEP and receiving extra time on tests. On what basis does he claim that special ed students are "unlikely to ever graduate with a high school diploma"? For many students, accommodations help them to succeed.
Now, I agree that too many students are being put into segregated classes where they almost inevitably receive inferior educations. This is a problem which needs to be rectified. But Biddle's categorical condemnation of too many kids--by which he means boys--being in the special ed system is perpetuating the stigma which comes along with being diagnosed with a learning disability. ("Learning disability" in a broad sense. For many people autism isn't a learning disability per se as much as it is a disability in other areas, including areas which may make school difficult.)
And there is, of course, a significant gender dimension to this argument. Biddle is concerned about boys in particular:
Boys are particularly vulnerable because their natural rambunctiousness is of great contrast to the more-docile behavior of their female classmates.
I've heard various iterations of this argument before--boys are disadvantaged in the current school system because of the emphasis on "good behavior." I am somewhat sympathetic to certain aspects of this argument. The racial disparities which Biddle calls attention to are particularly troublesome, and indicative of clear racial biases in defining "problem children." But Biddle's refusal to acknowledge that receiving accommodations can be a good thing leads to a rather skewed presentation of the issue.
Most notably, Biddle misses the problem of girls who may need accommodations as well. Just because a girl may appear "docile" much or all of the time does not mean she doesn't have a neurological disability, or that she wouldn't potentially benefit from accommodations and other services. Biddle frames the issue as an overdiagnosis of boys while missing the issue of girls' underdiagnosis.
Having grown up in the U.S. K-12 system during the early years of greatly expanded special ed services, I am convinced that neuro-atypical boys and girls do indeed receive disparate treatment. I won't say there's across-the-board privileging of males, given how messed up the special ed system is, but in many cases girls are underprivileged, underdiagnosed, and underaccommodated. For about 95% of the time, I was one of those docile girls who didn't seem to need special accommodations. The rest of the time I often melted down spectacularly, and very noticeably, but no one thought this was a sign of a neurological disability. The school told my parents to take me to a therapist to work out my Problems, but did not suggest any kind of diagnostic battery for disabilities. Often, girls have Emotional Issues, to be fixed only by therapy, while boys have officially recognized disabilities which mean they receive accommodations. And in my case, I definitely noticed that I was being treated badly because I Had Emotional Issues. I learned to hide my problems from teachers and guidance counselors, to a significant extent, because creating my own accommodations worked better for me. I certainly didn't want to be further subjected to the pain, humiliation, and teasing that came along with having my problems openly acknowledged. And, of course, hiding my problems meant that they went even more unnoticed. People thought I'd "gotten better" because of the therapy, but the underlying disabilities were still present.
How many girls are hiding their problems? How many girls are having their problems misinterpreted? And how many of them seem like "docile girls" much of the time?
While there are a few valid points buried in Biddle's commentary, overall his article does not demonstrate a very complete understanding of the issues, and perpetuates disability stigma and the privileging of male experiences.
No one, male or female, should receive an inferior education because they're diagnosed with a disability. But it's not diagnosis which is the problem as much as the way people react to it. In many ways, increased recognition is a good thing for kids who would otherwise struggle, or be treated as Naughty Children. Stigma, prejudice, and segregation are the real problems and the real instances of "abuse." And I mean this to apply to race as well as disability.
Not being diagnosed is not a privilege in and of itself. Girls are not categorically privileged by virtue of their gender. There is actually considerable evidence to suggest that the reverse situation is occurring in many circumstances.
The real solution to the problem, however, lies in making classrooms more universally accessible from the start. Certainly I won't deny that this will take a great deal of work and planning. But universal design is ultimately of benefit to everyone. Including "rambunctious boys."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
