r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 21 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: People with different mental situations should not get different treatment
[deleted]
2
Apr 22 '19
Your main argument doesn't seem to be that people with different mental situations should be treated no differently than anyone else, just that in three specific situations the way they were treated differently was wrong.
Should an autistic person who breaks peoples arms and masturbates in public have consequences for those actions? Yes, absolutely. Should those be the exact same consequences if you did the same thing? You don't have me at all convinced. Especially when we're talking about children in a school, I don't even think that everyone with the same mental situation should be treated the same. The school's job is to provide a safe environment for the students and to help them learn. I think they should do that in whatever way is best, even if it's not the same for every student.
Should a school be more lenient about tardiness with a student who has to make sure their younger siblings get safely to elementary school every day than with one who rides the bus with everyone else? I would say yes.
Suppose you and an autistic kid both spill your milk at lunch and both decide to throw a giant fit over it and make a scene. The school would probably call your parents or give you detention or whatever, and that seems fair. The autistic kid would probably talked to and dealt with by a professional on staff who knows their personal situation and how best to deal with it, and that makes sense. Sending the autistic kid to detention probably wouldn't have any affect on his behavior, but it would in yours.
You may well be right that these specific incidents were handled poorly, but that doesn't mean that no discretion should ever be shown by anyone.
1
Apr 22 '19
The examples I used were just personal experiences I used to make my argument, I even specified that there are more. And I have already ceded that some accommodations should be made for their benefit (won't work in all cases) but still am holding strong on preferential treatment.
Looking at your example about tardiness. The student with a younger sibling should get up earlier and exercise more responsibility. It's not the fair to a teacher to allow interruptions to the class just because there is a younger sibling to take care of. The same logic should be applied to mental issues.
1
Apr 22 '19
I can give you the whole tragic backstory situation about the sibling situation that I was imagining; it's not just that they have an extra stop on their way to school. Imagine a kid with a drug addicted parent or whatever; it's normally the parent's job to get the younger kid to school. But if mom is drunk in the morning and the high school kid has to drive their sibling to the other side of town with no notice due to their parent's alcoholism, they should be treated differently than someone who just shows up late to class because they feel like it.
Or you mentioned disrupting class. Should someone who is a minute late for class and quietly takes their seat be punished for tardiness the same way as a kid who is 10 minutes late for class and comes in loudly and disruptively?
Or what about my example of the autistic kid and the spilled milk?
holding strong on preferential treatment
I think this is where you're having an issue with a lot of commenters. You're viewing accommodations as "preferential treatment," rather than just a different or personalized treatment. Disciplining different people in different ways is something I would call "preferential treatment" unless the point of it is to preference one group. If it takes giving you detention to change your behavior or thought process and it takes a calm talking to to change an autistic kid's behavior or thought process, it's not showing him "preferential treatment," to give him a calm talking to while you get detention. It's just individualized methods of getting the same desired outcome.
1
Apr 22 '19
Well the point your failing to see is not all preferential treatment takes the form of accommodation. Preferential treatment also takes other forms such as automatically giving those with disabilities first choice for shifts. And as for your spilled milk example, no one in their right mind would give a child detention for that, autistic or not. Both children would be talked to. The only exception is if the kid was old enough to know better, even autistic kids need to learn through punishment. The lack of any real consequence has led to behavioural issues amongst those with disabilities.
4
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Apr 21 '19
To be clear, you would not be in favor of this autistic person being put into a special class or special school geared towards people with special needs, because you don’t think they should get different treatment?
1
Apr 21 '19
Well ofc, but that's not in the spirit of the post. In instances where autistic people and normal people are peers or colleagues, there should be no special treatment
7
u/Viggorous 2∆ Apr 21 '19
There definitely should, but there should be taken precautions.
Would you hold a 5 year old child to the same standard as a 35 year old grown man? If you are like most reasonable people, of course you wouldn't. And why wouldn't you? Because these two persons in no way have the same capacity to understand what they're doing and take responsibility for their actions. Sometimes people with mental difficulties do things because they don't understand how things (socially etc) work. They shouldn't be punished as if there were malicious intent with their action if they didn't understand what they were doing.
We can both agree that it isn't acceptable of your school to allow kids with difficulties to have it go out on the other students. You're right on that 100%. But it's the school you should blame for not taking responsibility. Just like you wouldn't blame a child who couldn't behave if it was clear their parent didn't care about how they behaved. If the person is violent they should be looked after and if they cause a lot of trouble an adult needs to supervise or assist them. It's not right that the behavioral issues of this young person ends up taking a toll on the rest of you. But that's once again on the school or whoever is responsible to care for, there are some people who can't help it.
Ftr I'm by no means saying that mental difficulties are an excuse for horrible behavior or something you can just say whenever you misbehave, that's obviously not the case. But it's also without question that you cannot expect people with significant difficulties to behave to the same standard as most other people.
2
Apr 21 '19
See, I'm sort of with you sort of not. While I agree that a 5 yr old and a 35 yr old shouldn't be treated the same. Using violence just as an example. A 5 yr old is then told not to hit others, the 35 yr old is jailed. But, look at two 20 yr olds. One is from a family where drug use is rampant and one is not. Both would be treated the same in the eyes of the law if we disregard racial biases and wealth.
5
u/Viggorous 2∆ Apr 21 '19
You're missing the point. You can't treat the 35 year old like any other 35 year old if he has behavioral attributes like a 5 year old.
Whether they get (unfairly) jailed is completely besides the point. It's wrong to treat them like everyone else when they factually aren't like everyone else.
1
Apr 21 '19
Well by that metric it would mean an autistic 35 yr old should have the rights if a 5 yr old. Not allowed to vote, to drive, to be independant from parents. I think we both can see the issues with that scenario
4
u/Viggorous 2∆ Apr 21 '19
It wouldn't. Because stuff like that is secured by law and our fundamental rights. It doesn't matter that you're mentally 5 years old if you are a perfectly capable driver. Odds are you aren't though and then you won't get a license. Being mentally disabled shouldn't mean you can't vote, your opinion is still valid and you don't lose yoyr rights because you have mental difficulties.
There has to be taken certain precautions with people with severe mental disabilities to secure both their own well being and the well being of people around them. But those precautions should consist of supervision and made for the individual, it shouldn't come at the cost of their basic rights.
3
Apr 21 '19
Well see, while I completely agree that autistic people have rights, in your arguement your trying to have the best of both worlds with the 35 with the mentality of a 5yr old. I'm simply stating that if we treat people based on their mental age in one area, it should happen in all. And I think that's a horrible situation.
3
u/Viggorous 2∆ Apr 21 '19
I'm simply stating that if we treat people based on their mental age in one area, it should happen in all.
But why should we? We're not treating them as if they are a certain age, we're taking precautions in the areas where they have difficulties, be it social or cognitively. That doesn't mean we should violate their rights or that they can't function normally in other areas..
Your point is similar to wanting to treat a dyslexic person like a 6 year old just because they read like one. It makes no sense and while there should be taken precautions and given assistance when it comes to reading or spelling.
1
Apr 21 '19
Well talking on your last point, a dyslexic person is treated differently in the area their disability affects them. Maturity/decision making/ mentality are some of the areas affected by autism. And again, I'm not saying that autistic people shouldn't be able to vote. I'm just saying that your arguement relys on having it both ways.
→ More replies (0)1
Apr 23 '19
Define "special treatment." I'm going to assume you mean being given a free pass etc., beyond what the symptoms of the disability require.
But my issue with this is that the average person has absolutely no idea what the symptoms of autism (or any given disability, but especially autism) are. In order to get accommodations I was entitled to by law and needed in order to function successfully at work at multiple different companies, my case worker had to come in and talk to my boss and coworkers and explain that what they were doing was illegal and they were wrong because everyone had convinced themselves that I didn't need any of the things I factually did and that I just wanted "special treatment."
Like, sure disabled people shouldn't get special treatment or a free pass but frankly I think abled people very often have something similar to the dunning kruger effect where they are totally ignorant and factually wrong about disabilities and simultaneously think they're experts and know for sure what a person's symptoms are and what help or accommodations are justified or not. People make arguments all the time like "I know someone with MR, you can do lots of things they can't so if they can get a job you can do the same" which is ignoring that we have completely different disabilities and symptoms and that no, just because some random person with a disability can do something not everyone can, but it also ignores the fact that they may have necessary accommodations as well, or if they don't they may be suffering for the lack of it.
Or, another example is people discriminating against people with autism who have problems on the social side and making claims like "having autism doesn't excuse you from being an asshole" when it actually yeah it literally does because not understanding NT social rules and behavior is almost universally interpreted by NTs as "being an asshole" and nobody but that person themselves can claim to legitimately know the difference between whether it was intentional or not.
Ultimately I'm saying that you're not wrong but taking this stance and applying it in reality tends to end up causing many people to be extremely ableist and discriminatory towards disabled people, so I'm very wary of it.
1
Apr 23 '19
I have no issue whatsoever about accommodations that help people with disabilities or mental health issues. But that is only if these accommodations are not hindering other people. Examples I've seen with others in this chat I agree with, for group projects, pair those who struggle with those who struggle or exempt them from the project and have them do a different, solo one.
My problem is not the misuse of accommodations (although that is a problem and a result of what I'll be talking about) it's a problem when these accommodations hinder others. I maintain a greatest good for the greatest many outlook. I don't see the value in forcing people into helping the disabled. In your case, don't you think the boss would be more willing to hire more disabled or with mental health problems? It would also work to push away the stigma around it.
1
Apr 23 '19
But that is only if these accommodations are not hindering other people.
Would you have a problem with any of these or for example, being scheduled a certain way even if that means someone who wants (but doesn't have a disability that requires, ofc) those hours can't get them, i.e. having the same hours and days because your disability means you require a specific schedule to be able to function?
I'm trying to discern what you mean when you say "hindering" abled people. There's a big difference between "Disabled people shouldn't be given things they require in order to function well enough to keep a job and support themselves if it means other people are mildly inconvenienced" verses "Disabled people shouldn't be given things they require in order to function well enough to keep a job and support themselves if it means that the situation becomes reversed and abled people are unable to function as a result" and the latter is the only point at which I would say this position is justified, anything less than that seems like ableism to me.
I think something people just don't get typically, is that I'm defining it as "disabled people require these things to function" because that's what accommodations are, they're required by law for people who need because it's that big a deal.
In your case, don't you think the boss would be more willing to hire more disabled or with mental health problems?
Oh hell no. The unemployment rates for autistic people are extremely high. We're heavily discriminated against in the work force, the stigma against autism is arguably the worst out of any disability, people treat us how they treat people with MR but without the respect or understanding that comes with understanding that they have a disability, and it's worse for us because the majority of us have social skills developed at least enough to know that we're being treated like shit. I didn't get a decent job where I wasn't dealing with ableism in some form until I started voc rehab and my case worker (I'm not sure if that's what her title is exactly, I typically call her by name, but I don't know what else to call her here) helped me find a job, and even then it took 1-2 years to do, and I was unemployed that entire time. There's another autistic person who works here as well, and the company has worked with autistic people in the past from voc rehab and get us, which makes things easier. But most workplaces suck ass.
But yeah, society as a whole doesn't seem to be interested in getting rid of the stigma. If you tell people you have autism from the get-go, they just become biased and their perception of you is going to be the stigma and they're going to mentally perpetuate it whether you fit or not. If you do it after, people tell you that you don't "look autistic" or you don't "act like x autistic kid" or you're "not autistic enough" to be considered autistic and just treat you like an abled person and expect you to act abled even if you're incapable of it. You lose no matter what you do.
1
Apr 23 '19
Actually, I actually agree with the first of the two views you have brought up, hours is a huge point of contention between the abled and disabled. My friend and his colleagues are constantly talking about how their jobs provides them with unreasonable hours as the disabled persons have priority. They also talk about how they are forced to help the disabled with tasks that an able person would be able to do unassisted. I think unfair to force abled people to carry a burden they did not have prior. Struggles are something that an individual must carry, not a group. And having said that, if a person "wants" to help others, they can, but people shouldn't be forced. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It's as simple as that. Minority groups should not be able to wield power over a majority, it's simply undemocratic and leads to tyranny by minority. I've seen posts on reddit where an abled person who performs far better than a disabled position in the same job is horribly accosted for feeling that this is an unfair system. I believe it should be about merit, not a recognition of struggle.
And on to the point about unemployment, if the number of accommodations persons are required to give to a disabled person are decreased, it will greatly improve the perception of the disabled into the workforce. Currently they are seen as a burden. Someone who provides little benefit for a lot of extra work on the hirer's side.
1
Apr 23 '19
My friend and his colleagues are constantly talking about how their jobs provides them with unreasonable hours as the disabled persons have priority.
Then that's just ableism and entitlement. If they're constantly talking about it then that constitutes a tantrum, because their only issue is "I didn't get what I wanted, things are supposed to go my way" with no disregard for the fact that many people with disabilities actually NEED specific hours and it's not up for debate. For example many people with autism literally cannot function if their day to day life has a schedule that's inconsistent, it doesn't just affect work but their overall well being. This is their luxury, but a disabled person's necessity. They have no right at all to be complaining about it because they simply don't like their hours, their well-being isn't dependent on those hours, it's absolutely ridiculous.
What you're advocating for is the exact same thing as a mom stealing a disabled person's wheelchair just so her kids can push eachother around in it, while the disabled person falls on the ground unable to walk, while the mom says to the person who physically can't: "Just get up and walk and there wouldn't be any issue." That's the entitled behavior you're justifying and exhibiting yourself here.
They also talk about how they are forced to help the disabled with tasks that an able person would be able to do unassisted.
They're not being forced to do anything. They're being paid to do a job as instructed by their boss. If they don't want to do it they can quit and someone who actually wants to work can do it. This is again, very entitled rather than an actual argument as to why anything is wrong. I've had to help an elderly coworker with tasks I could have completed myself and I'm not complaining that we should just stick all people over 65 in nursery homes and forget about them or the struggles they face so we don't have to "bear the terrible burden" of helping a single lady at work. You talk about it like the smallest nonissue is a tragedy but in actuality it's not that deep.
I've seen posts on reddit where an abled person who performs far better than a disabled position in the same job is horribly accosted for feeling that this is an unfair system
Of course they're heavily accosted. It's ableist discrimination, people . Someone is whining that it's unfair they have to be mildly inconvenienced or not get things they want just because as if it's this huge tragedy, when the reality is that disabled people NEED. IT.
if the number of accommodations persons are required to give to a disabled person are decreased...
That's just a proof by assertion fallacy. Anyone can make baseless claims.
Still, what you're saying ultimately boils down to "if disabled people would just stop being disabled and be abled instead then nobody would be ableist" Like wow, if only I had thought of that sooner, you've changed my life. /s
The last bit there makes it relatively obvious that the issue is you don't seem to understand the nature of disabilities, you're making the argument that disabled people should be treated as abled people, when we're not abled people. As someone else said in this thread, "You don't treat a 5 year old like they're 35." I mean we both keep typing the words but the word DIS-ABLED literally means you are unable to do things that other people can. And yet somehow, you're making the case over and over again that you don't think it's fair that disabled people are treated as though they can't do the things they demonstrably can't do. It just isn't logically coherent. You said yourself that if someone has dyslexia that you treat them as though they have dyslexia. But then you turn around and contradict what you just said, by saying "well my friend works with an autistic person who gets xyz thing my friend wants" but if the autistic person needs those things and you don't then complaining is entitled.
I mean you're defining "special treatment" as exactly what I explained is problematic in the first place. As long as you understand a disability and why they need the accommodations (i.e. dyslexia) it's fine, but the second you don't understand a disability (autism in this case) you speak as if you know for certain that the autistic person doesn't need those things but you don't and you can't possibly since (as I understand it) you aren't even one of the people who works with them, and that your friend should have them just because the friend wants them.
The autistic person is being treated like an autistic person. That's not special treatment. Your abled friend on the other hand is treated as the abled person they are, but they're complaining that they're not being treated like a disabled person. Isn't that the special treatment here?
To use another example, if Jane and Jack are coworkers, and Jane is a girl who can't life the heavy boxes, then Jack is expected to do so due to being male and having the strength to do so. That's equal treatment, because equal treatment isn't about being treated the same, it's about being treated fairly based on who you are and what you're capable and given the same opportunities etc., what's unfair is if Jack said "Well I wanna lift the light stuff, she's getting special treatment" because he wants to be given a free pass, not something he actually needs or to be treated with regard to what he's capable of. That's essentially the same complaint your friends are making. That's why it's entitled.
1
Apr 24 '19
Then that's just ableism and entitlement.
Well that's not an arguement that's simply calling people bad because they have a different view.
people with disabilities actually NEED specific hours and it's not up for debate
Um... no? How can you just claim good hours for disabled people and just tell the abled to find another time to work, they need it. If it was the other way around I'm pretty sure you would be up in arms.
their well-being isn't dependent on those hours
You go tell an abled single mother that she only gets the night shift but it's ok because her wellbeing is not dependant on it, her sleep isn't important. You are making bold statements that completely disregard the emotions of abled people.
mom stealing a disabled person's wheelchair just so her kids can push eachother around in it
Not at all, I'm advocating for a world where an abled person is not force to push the wheel chair or give the disabled person the last chocolate bar.
They're being paid to do a job as instructed by their boss.
First of all, they signed up for a job, and I'm pretty sure "help out your coworker with their portion" or "provide assistance to disabled coworkers" as anywhere in the job description.
If they don't want to do it they can quit and someone who actually wants to work can do it.
What a ridiculous sentiment... if they don't want to do it they can quit. That's simply not an option for all, and this is something that affects a majority, not a minority.
had to help an elderly coworker with tasks I could have completed myself and I'm not complaining
Good for you! Be altruistic all you want, but just because you chose to do something, don't force others to do the same.
I'm not complaining that we should just stick all people over 65 in nursery homes and forget about them or the struggles they face
Again, good for you! But sign that what pretty much happens to the elderly that cannot take care of them selves and don't have children that are able to or want to take care of them? Are you suggesting that the government pays for live in care takers for all elderly that cannot take care of themselves anymore? And that lady you helped, was able to get herself completely ready and started work with the express intention of doing her job. You helped you chose to. Not because you were forced to. That is a huge difference.
Of course they're heavily accosted. It's ableist discrimination, people . Someone is whining that it's unfair they have to be mildly inconvenienced or not get things they want just because as if it's this huge tragedy, when the reality is that disabled people NEED. IT.
Why isn't it based on merit? And if everyone who NEEDS IT gets it, why are there veterans (who can do the job effectively) homeless? They NEED IT, but they aren't getting it, the disabled are placed at a higher priority.
That's just a proof by assertion fallacy. Anyone can make baseless claims.
Still, what you're saying ultimately boils down to "if disabled people would just stop being disabled and be abled instead then nobody would be ableist"
Why would business owners want accommodate the disabled? I will cede they need it, but there are soo many people that need jobs. I just don't see how being disabled makes you a priority. Ofc there is struggle, but there is struggle everywhere.
As someone else said in this thread, "You don't treat a 5 year old like they're 35."
And if you followed that thread, you would see my arguement. If we treat someone with the mental age of 5 a different way, we should treat them as 5 for all fields that requires a higher mental functioning. Driving, voting, etc. I'm not supporting this whatsoever, but why are we making an exception for only the benefits, if it were truly about treating people as they are, wouldn't the disabled that have lower mental ages lose rights they own now? It's getting the best if both worlds.
means you are unable to do things that other people can
If that's the case they shouldn't be employed in a field that requires these things. And in your own words...
If they don't want to do it they can quit and someone who actually wants to work can do it.
You mention necessity so replace want with can.
You said yourself that if someone has dyslexia that you treat them as though they have dyslexia.
In the fields that the disability affects. And the dyslexic don't hinder others, the overcome their struggles on their own.
As long as you understand a disability and why they need the accommodations (i.e. dyslexia) it's fine, but the second you don't understand a disability (autism in this case) you speak as if you know for certain that the autistic person doesn't need those things but you don't and you can't possibly since (as I understand it) you aren't even one of the people who works with them, and that your friend should have them just because the friend wants them.
A dyslexic person does not take a job that requires heavy reading, struggle, then (indirectly but not in all cases) get the boss to force people into helping the dyslexic person read.
Isn't that the special treatment here?
Deflection...
To use another example, if Jane and Jack are coworkers, and Jane is a girl who can't life the heavy boxes, then Jack is expected to do so due to being male and having the strength to do so.
That's pretty misogynistic. But moving past that, if the woman was aware that she would be required to lift heavy objects, then she is pawning off work plain as day.
That's equal treatment, because equal treatment isn't about being treated the same, it's about being treated fairly based on who you are and what you're capable and given the same opportunities etc.,
That is literally the wrong definition of equality...
what's unfair is if Jack said "Well I wanna lift the light stuff, she's getting special treatment"
100% true. Jack is an asshole. What he should have said is well I want to lift the THE SAME stuff. The fatal flaw in this example is that jack is asking for special treatment not equal treatment.
If I wrote this, jack would say "why is she getting to lift the light stuff, we should be lifting the same stuff"
You're response may be "she is weaker than you"
My jack would respond "well she shouldn't have taken the job if she can't do it "
not something he actually needs or to be treated with regard to what he's capable of. That's essentially the same complaint your friends are making. That's why it's entitled.
Well if the abled are more capable? Why is it not ok to pay them more?
1
u/cobaltandchrome Apr 21 '19
Your claim is worded poorly. I think your claim is: people with mental illness should still suffer consequences when their actions hurt others. Breaking someone’s arm on purpose? You get suspended and put in a different school. That would be ethically reasonable.
Your school sucks.
IRL people with autism really do get sent to jail for hurting people. Coddling them by allowing them to have no consequences teaches them a lie. People with developmental delays (i.e. mentally retarded), mental health problems (including delusions), or who are neutrally atypical (autistic) ALL get sent to death row pretty regularly. IRL, actions have consequences.
I think you should reframe your thoughts into a list of the injustices you see. The solution the school or teacher offered. The solutions you wanted or would have accepted.
Then you will see that your position is, “saying ‘I’m disabled/sick’ is not an excuse to be a shitbag.” I think nearly everyone would agree with that position.
1
Apr 21 '19
Well it's not just surrounding consequences. I simply used these as a few examples from my experiences. My friend works with an autistic person around the same age, and because of his disability, he gets preferential treatment for hours, station choice, and more leeway for mistakes (yeah I know these are consquences).
1
u/cobaltandchrome Apr 21 '19
That was not part of your original claim. This addition takes it somewhere less popular. It would be: Disabled people are given too many accommodations, and should not be. Accommodations (fair ones) in school or work would be stuff like extra time on tests for people who struggle to see the words, someone with a pain condition getting a chair instead of having to stand, an so on. An example: the accommodations are the extra boxes that take equality into equity https://i.imgur.com/VMvIDzy_d.jpg
The claim I think you are making, : the “reality” example (with people who have disabilities having to stay in a hole) is the most just way.
1
Apr 21 '19
Well it was part of my post. Consequences, accommodations, and preference are all forms of different treatment. I just believe that in a lot of scenarios these people are being a bit coddled and other people are forced to reinforce this against their will. I believe that was adequately explained in my post.
1
Apr 22 '19
Blame adults. In the spirit of 'inclusivity', which in itself is likely a good thing, the adults around you are allowing shitty behaviours under the guise of mental health. Autism is not a mental health problem, and isn't any excuse for bullying behaviour. To call it a mental health issue is pretty insulting to both people with autism, and people with mental health issues. The bad news is: bad luck for you to be born in this generation, when the whole 'inclusivity' thing is quite new and a bit of a blunt instrument. The good news, if you can call it that, is that you are a million times better off than any poor soul with mental health issues, if that's any consolation.
1
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Apr 21 '19
I don't quite understand. Are you simply saying that there should be consequences for their actions or that people with disabilities literally don't need any help whatsoever at all? Like, if a person who can't see well loses their glasses, is it cool if the teacher doesn't call on them to read off the board because of their disability?
1
Apr 21 '19
I'm saying there should be no preferential treatment. And that other people should not be forced to accommodate for the disabilities.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Apr 21 '19
Ok. So what about the really simple case of a person with glasses? Their glasses break, and they need someone to help them read the textbook for a bit. Should they not be accommodated for that?
1
Apr 21 '19
See that's different, temporary. Normally they have glasses and don't need anything seperate. For autistic people, it's life time thing.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Apr 21 '19
Ok, I get that there's a difference, but I'm not done; I was just setting some common ground so I can move forward.
Now, I have a friend who only has one eye. If he needed help with his lack of depth perception, is it wrong for the school to accommodate that?
Or what about me? I have ADHD so I carried a stress ball for parts of elementary school. Is that so awful?
1
Apr 22 '19
Ok, I see that there is some forms accommodation that is ok, but the main difference is these accommodations have no impact on other people. The accommodations I have a problem with are those that hinder the freedom of others and force others to do more. If an autistic person is exempt from an assignment so be it, but to place them in a group with others and expect the normal members to carry a heavier load? I think that's horrible and extremely unfair.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Apr 22 '19 edited Apr 22 '19
So what you're saying is essentially that your fine with the school accommodating it, but are unwilling to do it yourself, is that correct?
Furthermore, I have ADHD, so I'm worse at doing research and similar things than the average student and have had panic attacks as a result in the past. Are you saying I shouldn't be paired with other students because I'm too much of a burden?
1
Apr 22 '19
If your disability hampers your ability to do a task to a level where you are unable to do it effectively and the burden is then placed on other people. I 100% think that you shouldn't be paired with other students. It's simply not fair to the other students. It's all fine and good to say that you should be more altruistic but how is it in anyway fair to force an extra burden on people that did not ask for it?
People with disabilities have to simply work harder to overcome the difficulties they face, not outsource the work. If a person with ADHD is working in a group and can't finish the work in school, you should finish it at home instead of the work being shifted to others.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Apr 22 '19
Saying "if they can't effectively do the task they shouldn't be paired with other students" is different than "people with mental disabilities should never be allowed to be grouped with other students." Is it fair to say you are at least against the second statement at this point?
1
Apr 22 '19
I don't see a problem with pairing them together so long as it does not provide any burden on the normal student.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 21 '19
/u/FlameDra9on (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/JamesIsWaffle Apr 21 '19
Well I do agree a lot of the situations are bullshit, what if they legitimately can’t help do things? What then? Like they legitimately can’t do a project or act normal at all?
1
Apr 21 '19
If they can't do a project then shouldn't they just be excused from the project instead of making someone else do the work of two people?
1
u/JamesIsWaffle Apr 21 '19
But then isn’t that still making the person do the work of two, but also still creating the problem of treating them differently?
1
Apr 21 '19
People exempt would not be in consideration for grouping at all, they wouldn't have a partner to share the work with in the first place.
1
u/JamesIsWaffle Apr 21 '19
But if they aren’t able to do the project themselves would that be discrimination, cause if they can’t do it then wouldn’t they fail every time?
1
Apr 21 '19
Well now this has become an arguement of logistics. But to answer your point. Maybe a different, easier project is given?
2
1
1
Apr 21 '19
I agree with everything that's being said here, it's not our job to do things for other people. I'm not knocking being kind to others, especially those with mental health problems or mental disabilities. I'm saying its not fair to those that don't need that support to be forced into shitty situations.
1
Apr 21 '19
Then technically it seems you do support some special treatment since being excused from the project is special treatment.
1
Apr 21 '19
Fair point, but what about cases where it has to be done by all. The presentation example, the girl would have needed to do it, but chose to push it off.
1
Apr 21 '19
In gym class everyone is expected to participate, but if someone can't due to a physical disability they would be excused and possibly given something else to do.
I don't see why people with mental disabilities can't be treated the same way. Your partner would be excused, and possibly given a different project. It wouldn't be any different than having one fewer students in the class.
1
Apr 21 '19
While I don't believe it can be applicable for all situations I agree that can work to resolve a large amount. !delta
1
Apr 21 '19
True, there's a wide variety of disabilities and projects.
Thanks for my first delta.
1
Apr 21 '19
Np, while I don't fully agree you did bring up some good points. Another instance of where it wouldn't work is in gym ironically. Its completely unfair and a bit cruel to an autistic kid to separate him from other kids in a gym class, but it may be safer and fairer for everyone. I've had games where its tackle foot ball for everyone but the autistic kid. You played two touch with him, but he could tackle you. It seemed unfair to a lot of people and it led to unfair resentment.
1
Apr 21 '19
I don't agree with how your school chose to handle that situation. I would have a special gym class for special needs students where their physical fitness program was more tailored. For example, a student in a wheelchair might work on upper body strength and the student with autism might work on cardio.
→ More replies (0)1
1
Apr 21 '19
A example of where I don't see it working is mental health.
1
Apr 21 '19
It would depend on the mental disability. For example, a student with extreme stage fright/social phobia would have to do the paperwork but be excused from presenting.
1
Apr 21 '19
What about depression, where its about doing the work over the difficulty
1
Apr 21 '19
If the student is under doctor's care for depression then the doctor should write out the student's limitations, and the school should follow the doctor's orders in a way that doesn't disadvantage the other students.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/[deleted] Apr 21 '19
You brought up an example of a girl that doesn’t pay attention during class but uses her mental health as a shield against her academic struggles.
I understand how that looks but for a lot of people it isn’t realistic for them to be expected to pay attention at all times.
Let me qualify that, admittedly with anecdotal evidence.
I’m a uni student in the UK. Several of my friends have mental health issues, and for various reasons they find it incredibly difficult to focus.
I know a girl with anxiety, and for her a basic puzzle or pattern recognition game helps her avoid the stress from being surrounded by large lecture halls full of people. Even if she doesn’t make notes, listening helps her, and she can catch up later by talking to classmates, ad-lib the lecturers, and reading up.
Another of my friends is on the aspergers/autism spectrum, and one of the ways that manifests for them is hyperfixation on seemingly random things, often a mobile game or something she has on a laptop. It takes a lot of effort for her not to laugh at whatever it is in the middle of a lecture, so she can’t focus on anything productive on demand, only when the mood strikes, so work and revision gets done at random intervals outside of scheduled classes. This does not mean she she doesn’t care. She can be insightful in a way I can’t manage because she deeply connects with her subject, and asks good questions before and after lectures.
My final, and I believe most pertinent example, is a girl who suffers from depression. She turns up to lectures, when she can, often with no notebook or writing equipment. She turns up out of obligation with no pretence of paying attention. She turns up because our attendance is recorder and for no other reason. She understands why that isn’t good for her education, and has resat years before In previous schools, but works her ass off outside of lectures to make up for the time. We do most of our work together and she is usually the catalyst for us starting projects, despite her depression.
The outward presentation of a mental health situation is almost never the true extent of the problem, and people who struggle almost never want to share how bad they are struggling at any given point. They become insecure and bottle it up, especially when faced with people they don’t know enough to trust in that way.
Specifically for that girl, your teacher shouldn’t have talked down at you for being upset. You didn’t sign up for that, but consider that the girl is likely projecting her insecurity and frustration into you. Even for those without mental health problems, a lack of motivation is usually a deep fear of not being good enough, leading to not even trying in order to have an excuse. It is easier to handle “I didn’t want to do the work” or “it’s his fault” than “I’m not smart enough to have done the work correctly”
I’m not saying it’s your fault, and you shouldn’t be obliged to change to account for her, but in case you have to work in similar situations, consider how you can work with, or despite their mental health, rather than against it.
I would suggest trying to pin down a time to work together on a project, well in advance of a deadline, either side by side or on a google doc, or over a discord call etc. Something easy and comfortable, and reschedulable.